Allahabad High Court
ROSHAN YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The bail application is allowed; the accused is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
Summary
The accused, Roshan Yadav, applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 219 of 2026) alleging assault with an iron rod that resulted in serious injuries, including a claimed linear fracture of the left temporal bone. He contended that the FIR was filed belatedly, that the medical evidence was inconsistent—specifically an NCCT scan showing no bony injury and an unendorsed handwritten report—and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the severity of the injuries and the injured party’s statement implicating the accused. The Court examined the nature of the injuries, the questionable medical evidence, and the accused’s lack of criminal history, and, without addressing the merits of the case, granted bail. The order directed the accused to be released on personal bond and two sureties, citing Supreme Court precedents on bail policy, and required cooperation for a speedy trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged assault causing serious injuries.
- Whether the inconsistencies in medical evidence (NCCT scan and handwritten report) affect the necessity of pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the accused’s lack of prior criminal record and duration of custody justify bail.
- How the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence (Girish Gandhi case and Policy Strategy case) applies to the present application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 351(3) BNS
Subjects
- bail
- assault
- medical evidence
- NCCT scan
- Indian Penal Code
- Uttar Pradesh
- pre‑trial detention
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33847 of 2026
Roshan Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kiran Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Azaz Ahmad, G.A., Vineet Kumar
Yadav
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-
applicant, Sri Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant
Roshan Yadav to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2026,
under Sections 109(1), 351(3) BNS, P.S.- Kaptanganj, District-
Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the
accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in belated F.I.R. dated
10.07.2026 lodged by the informant for the incident of 01.07.2026 with
the allegation that the accused-applicant has assaulted the informant with
iron rod, as there is some monetary transaction between the two, which
led to assault. Further contended that the injured suffered four injuries,
out of which, one is shown as linear fracture of the left temporal bone.
Further submits that there is over writing in one NCCT Scan. There is no
endorsement on the said hand written medical report, although the NCCT
Scan has shown no bony injuries seen. The charge sheet is submitted. The
applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 05.08.2026
and hence, the applicant seeks to be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State have
opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that there is
BAIL No. 33847 of 2026
2
injury threatening to life on the person of injured and there is clear
statement of the injured about the role of accused-applicant and hence,
seeks rejection of the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considered the role of accused-applicant, nature and number of injuries
and over writing on the NCCT Scan.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 23, 2026
Shivangi
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…