Allahabad High Court
JANOversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The court held that the accused is entitled to bail due to the lack of specific details in the FIR and ambiguity about the weapon and role, and therefore granted bail.
Summary
The accused Jano applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 295 of 2026) involving alleged assault with a sharp-edged weapon and a fatal injury to the victim Gulzar. The FIR, lodged on 25.07.2026, does not specify the exact date and time of the incident, and there is inconsistency regarding the weapon used. The prosecution argued that all accused, including Jano, entered the house and assaulted the informant and her nephew, leading to Gulzar's death, and opposed bail. The defense highlighted the lack of a clear role for Jano, her clean criminal record, and the ambiguities in the FIR and medical reports. The court, noting the uncertainties and the nature of the injuries, granted bail without addressing the merits, ordering personal bond and sureties, and referred to Supreme Court precedents on bail policy.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the ambiguities in the FIR regarding date, time, and weapon used.
- Whether the alleged role of the accused in the assault and fatal injury justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the accused's clean criminal record and cooperation affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 3(5), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- fatal injury
- FIR ambiguity
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34163 of 2026
Jano
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Zia Uddin
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Deepak KUmar, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri
Zia Uddin, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for
State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Jano to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 295 of 2026, under
Sections 115(2), 352, 109(1), 351(3) and 3(5) BNS, P.S.- Dhampur,
District- Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the FIR has
been lodged on 25.07.2026 by the injured/informant Farzana against four
named accused persons including the accused/applicant with the
allegation that the accused persons entered the house of the informant and
started assaulting her nephew Gulzar by sharp edged weapon, while she
came to rescue him, she has also been assaulted. It is further contended
that there is no specific date and time of the incident mentioned in the
FIR, although medico legal examination of both the injured has been
carried out on 24.07.2026 at 06:45 p.m. and 07:05 p.m. It is further
contended that the weapon was hard and blunt. There is no supplementary
medical report of informant Farzana, whereas the supplementary medical
report of Gulzar shows fracture of left temporal bone. No specific role is
attributed by accused/applicant, who is a lady. It is further contended that
the accused/applicant has no criminal history. The investigation is
continuing and the accused/applicant is cooperating in the trial. The
BAIL No. 34163 of 2026
2
accused applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2026. 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 submit that specific role have been
assigned to all the accused persons that they have entered the house and
assaulted the informant and her nephew, due to which Gulzar suffered
fatal injury on his head. Further submits that the accused/applicant and
informant are neighbours and there was some dispute between them.
Hence, seeks 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 the nature and numbers of injuries and there is no specific
date and time of the incident and apparent change of weapon, 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.)
October 1, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…