Allahabad High Court
SUNIL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that the accused is entitled to bail as the prosecution has not established his active participation beyond exhortation and the case falls within the parameters of recent Supreme Court bail guidelines.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil Singh, accused in a case under Sections 118(2), 109(1), 351(3) and 61(2) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting two brothers with a kulhari and exhorting co‑accused to kill them. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the serious skull fractures suffered by the victims and the recovery of the weapon. The defence argued that there was no independent witness to the weapon’s recovery and that the accused’s alleged role was limited to exhortation without any overt act. After weighing the submissions, the Court concluded that the evidence did not conclusively link the accused to the violent act and, applying the Supreme Court’s recent bail guidelines, ordered his release on bail. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond and two sureties, with a direction to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged under Sections 118(2), 109(1), 351(3) and 61(2) of the IPC given the seriousness of the injuries inflicted.
- Whether the absence of an independent witness to the recovery of the weapon and the alleged role of mere exhortation preclude bail.
- How the Supreme Court’s bail jurisprudence in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail in re should be applied.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 118(2), 351(3), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- exhortation
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
- injury
- weapon recovery
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33972 of 2026
Sunil Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for accused applicant and learned
A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Sunil Singh to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2026, under
Sections 118(2), 109(1), 351(3), 61(2) BNS, P.S.- Barsathi, District-
Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been named in the FIR dated 12.07.2026 due to family
enmity lodged by the father of two injured sons, namely, Raj Singh and
Udai Singh. It is the allegation in the FIR that the five accused persons
had assaulted, the injured with Kulhari, sharp edged weapon. It is further
contended that the accused applicant has also been assigned the role of
exhortation that he was standing on the terrace and exhorted the co-
accused to kill injured Raj Singh and Udai Singh. The applicant has
criminal history of three cases, wherein in one case final report has been
submitted and in two cases he is on bail. The investigation is continuing
and applicant is co-operating in the investigation. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 12.07.2026. He seeks to be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that the injuries have been caused to the two injured as there was fracture
on their skull bone. It is further contended that the recovery of Kulhari is
at the instance of co-accused. Hence seeks that the application be rejected.
BAIL No. 33972 of 2026
2
5. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that
there is no independent witness of recovery of Kulhari. The role attributed
to the co-accused, who is relative of injured is of exhortation with no
overt act.
6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the nature of injuries and role attributed to the
accused/applicant, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
9. 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].
10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 23, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…