Allahabad High Court
PULKIT CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
In the absence of a specific role attributed to the accused in the FIR, bail may be granted notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Summary
The accused, Pulkit Chaudhary, applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 370 of 2026) involving alleged assault with an iron rod, for which the FIR named four other persons but not him. He argued that he was implicated only due to a family relationship and that no specific act was attributed to him, citing his lack of criminal history and cooperation with the investigation. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the grievous injuries to four victims and the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the submissions, noted the absence of a specific role for the accused in the FIR, and, without addressing the merits, allowed the bail application. The bail was granted on condition of a personal bond and two sureties, referencing Supreme Court dicta in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail in Re.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the accused is not specifically named or assigned a role in the FIR despite serious charges.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences and the presence of grievous injuries preclude the grant of bail.
- How the Supreme Court's recent bail policy precedents apply to this case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- FIR
- Indian Penal Code
- grievous injuries
- Supreme Court precedent
- property dispute
- assault
- personal bond
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34190 of 2026
Pulkit Chaudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subedar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kapil Kumar, Sandhya Singh
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned advocate, holding the brief,
appeared for the accused-applicant, Sri Kapil Kumar, 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
Pulkit Chaudhary to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 370 of 2026,
under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS,
P.S.- Phase-2 Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency
of trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the
accused-applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. dated 23.08.2026
lodged at 21:45 hours for the incident occurred on the same day at 12:30
p.m. with the allegation that four named and 15-20 anonymous persons
had assaulted the informant and his family members, namely, Vikas,
Pradeep and Ankit along with the informant Shiv Ram. The injured
suffered grievous injuries. Further contended that the four persons have
been named in the F.I.R. They have been provided the specific role. The
weapon used in the assault is iron rod. Further contended that the
accused-applicant has been implicated in the F.I.R. merely, because he is
relative of the accused and no overt act has been attributed on the
accused. There is an eye witness, Sunder Bhati, who has named him, but
there is no specific role shown. There was a property dispute between the
parties, which led to the implication of the accused persons. He is resident
of Delhi. The investigation is continuing. He is cooperating in the
BAIL No. 34190 of 2026
2
investigation. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in
jail since 24.08.2026 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 are
four injured persons, who suffered grievous injuries on their person
including the fracture. The injuries are grievous in nature. One of the
accused have also tried to throttle the neck to kill. Hence, the applicant,
who is involved in the incident, may not be released on bail.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considered the omnibus allegation against the accused and without
assigning any specific role.
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 24, 2026
Shivangi
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…