Allahabad High Court
SATISH JAYSAVALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that, on a prima facie basis and in view of inconsistent medical reports, the accused is entitled to bail.
Summary
The accused, Satish Jayswal, applied for bail in a case arising from a road‑traffic accident alleged to have caused grievous injuries under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 109 of the IPC. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged by a relative with whom he has a dispute, and that the medico‑legal reports were inconsistent. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries and the accused’s role as driver. The Court, after considering the rival submissions and the contradictory medical reports, concluded that the evidence was only prima facie and that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and sureties, with reference to the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 109 IPC in view of the alleged road‑traffic accident causing grievous injuries.
- Whether the existence of conflicting medico‑legal reports and the claim of false implication affect the bail eligibility.
- Whether the accused’s prior criminal history precludes the grant of bail.
- How the Supreme Court’s principles in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2024) apply to the present application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 35(3)
Subjects
- bail
- road traffic accident
- grievous injury
- prima facie
- medico‑legal report
- false implication
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court bail jurisprudence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33994 of 2026
Satish Jaysaval
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hariom Awasthi, Prateek Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Prateek Srivastava, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri
Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Satish Jayswal to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2026,
under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 109 BNS, P.S.- Chakarghatta,
District- Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR 03.07.2026 lodged by
Gopal, son of injured Ram Janam. The allegation in the FIR is that on
03.07.2026 at about 13:30 hrs three persons including the
accused/applicant were on vehicle Maruti Brezza and with the intention to
commit murder, they hit the injured by the vehicle. Due to which he
suffered injuries. It is the contention of learned counsel that the
accused/applicant is shown as driver of the car. The co-accused has
already been granted bail. The injury report of the injured shows that the
injured has been admitted in the hospital Swashasi Rajya Chikitsa
Mahavidyalaya, Sonbhadra with the history of road traffic accident
having chest pain, lower leg pain, right hand swelling and forearm pain.
On the very next day, he was discharged. The general condition was
found to be good. It is further contended that later on, a subsequent
medical report has been obtained on 07.07.2026, which shows that the
BAIL No. 33994 of 2026
2
injured sustained four injuries, which came to be the facture of third rib.
The injured is relative of accused/applicant. He is uncle and there is
dispute between the parties. Initially the FIR has been lodged by the
accused/applicant and in counter blast the present FIR has been lodged.
The applicant has been falsely implicated. The accused/applicant has
criminal history of two cases, wherein in one case he is on bail and in
another case he has been released on notice under Section 35(3)
BNSS. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2026. He
seeks to be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the grievous injuries, which
is fatal to life has been caused to the injured. The applicant is driver of the
car, hence submits that the bail application be rejected.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering prima faice two inconsistent medico legal examination
reports and the matter of road accident, the accused/applicant is entitled to
be released on bail.
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
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…