Allahabad High Court
VINODversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that the accused is entitled to bail because the incident stems from a family dispute, the FIR is a cross‑complaint, and no specific role is attributed to the accused, consistent with Supreme Court bail policy.
Summary
The accused Vinod applied for bail in a case involving offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 131, 118(1), 351(3) and 109(1) IPC arising from a family dispute that led to a cross‑fight on 1 August 2026, injuring both parties. The FIR was lodged by the informant, who is the wife of the accused’s brother, and the same family members are named as co‑accused. The applicant argued that the FIR is a cross‑complaint, no specific role is attributed to him, and he has cooperated with the investigation while on bail in two other cases. The State opposed bail, but the court considered the familial nature of the incident, the cross‑complaint, and the Supreme Court’s recent bail policy pronouncements. Without addressing the merits, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, directing the accused to cooperate with the judicial process.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a pending trial involving multiple IPC offences arising from a family dispute.
- Whether the cross‑complaint nature of the FIR and lack of specific participation by the accused justify bail.
- How the Supreme Court’s recent bail policy (Girish Gandhi v. State of UP and Policy Strategy for grant of bail) applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 131, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- family dispute
- cross‑complaint
- Supreme Court precedent
- injury
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34032 of 2026
Vinod
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranshu Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pranshu Gupta, learned counsel for accused applicant and
learned A.G.A. for State.
1A. Learned counsel for the applicants hands up the supplementary
affidavit explaining the criminal history, the same is taken on record.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Vinod to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2026, under
Sections 115(2), 352, 131, 118(1), 351(3), 109(1) BNS, P.S.- Bahsuma,
District- Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the informant
and accused persons are of same family. The informant is married to real
brother of the accused/applicant. The FIR dated 02.08.2026 lodged
against three persons including the accused/applicant, wherein two other
accused are brother and sister of the accused/applicant. The informant
Smt. Neetu has lodged the FIR with the allegation that she was married
to Manoj, the brother of accused/applicant in the month of February 2025,
subsequently there was some dispute between her , her husband and in-
laws. It is due to this dispute that there was a cross fight between the
parties, on 01.08.2026 at about 1:00 p.m., wherein informant and her
husband Manoj suffered injuries. Three injuries are suffered by the
informant and eight injuries was suffered by Manoj, all the injuries are
simple in nature except one, which is fracture of the frontal bone. It is
further contended that due to the cross fight Pooja one of the co-accused
BAIL No. 34032 of 2026
2
suffered injuries, whose injury report is at page no. 59 of the application.
The applicant tried to lodged the cross FIR but the same was not
registered, which led her to move an application under Section 173(4)
BNSS. There is no specific role attributed on the accused/applicant. The
weapon used shown in the FIR is iron rod. There is no recovery. The
investigation is continuing. The accused/applicant has criminal history of
two cases and in both the cases, he is on bail. The accused applicant is
languishing in jail since 04.08.2026 and cooperating in the investigation.
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.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the cross fight between the parties, which led to the
injuries on both the sides as they are the family members and cross
version of the FIR, 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…