Allahabad High Court
DEEPAKversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
In the absence of a specific time of incident and given the medical opinion, the bail application was allowed without touching the merits of the case.
Summary
The accused Deepak applied for bail in a case under Sections 109(1), 118(1) and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code relating to an alleged assault on two injured persons. The FIR, lodged by the mother of one injured, alleged that Deepak and another person assaulted the victims, but the defence argued that only Deepak was involved and that the victims were intoxicated, with the medical report doubting the seriousness of the injuries and noting no weapon was recovered. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The court, after considering the medical opinion and the absence of a specific time of incident, allowed the bail application without addressing the merits of the case, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and sureties, and to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 109, 118 and 351 of the IPC pending trial
- Whether the lack of a specific time of incident and the medical evidence affect the bail decision
- Whether the applicant's cooperation and prior bail history justify release
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 118, 351
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 109
- Section 118
- Section 351
- medical evidence
- false implication
- cooperation with investigation
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34227 of 2026
Deepak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kapil Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the accused-applicant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant
Deepak to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 330 of 2026, under
Sections 109(1), 118(1), 351(2) BNS, P.S.- Phase-1, Noida, District-
Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the
F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.07.2026 by the mother of one of the injured
with the allegation that on 05.07.2026 at undisclosed time, the accused-
applicant and another accused-applicant (nephew of Pramod) had
assaulted the two injured, namely, Vivek and Dharmendra. Further
contended that in actuality, there is only one accused as the nephew of
Pramod is also referred to the accused-applicant. Further submits that the
medico-legal examination report of both the injured Vivek and
Dharmendra shows that when they were brought before the doctor, they
were under the influence of liquor. The stab wound, which is shown, is
doubted by the doctor in its opinion. The injuries are stated to be simple
in nature. There is no recovery of any weapon. Further contended that due
to old enmity, the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this
case, as father of accused has initially lodged the F.I.R. against the injured
Vivek. In this backdrop, the counterblast F.I.R. has been lodged. They
might have sustained injuries somewhere else and falsely implicated. It is
therefore, no time of incident reported in the F.I.R. The investigation is
BAIL No. 34227 of 2026
2
continuing. He is cooperating in the investigation. The applicant has one
case criminal history, wherein he is on bail. The applicant is in jail since
06.07.2026 and hence, the applicant seeks to be released on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considered the medical opinion of the doctor and that no specific time
of incident is shown.
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…