Allahabad High Court
ISHAN UPADHAYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted the bail application.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Ishan Upadhaya, accused in Crime No. 265 of 2026 under sections 89, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated in a case involving the death of a newborn at his hospital, noting that the victim’s statement did not name him and that a co‑accused doctor had already been granted bail. The State, represented by the Advocate General, contended that ample evidence linked the applicant to the offence. The Court examined the nature of the accusations, the evidence, the applicant’s period of incarceration, and his clean criminal record, and concluded that he had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and detailed conditions to ensure his presence at trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, Ishan Upadhaya, is entitled to bail pending trial in the case arising under sections 89, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 180, 183, 209, 238, 269, 3(5), 351, 61(2), 84, 89
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313, 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 174-A, 229-A
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- medical negligence
- criminal procedure
- conditions of bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34545 of 2026
Ishan Upadhaya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.T. Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State of U.P.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2026, under Sections 89, 238, 61(2), 3(5)
of B.N.S., Police Station- Gonda, District- Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended
that the applicant has been falsely implicated by police in the F.I.R. dated
06.08.2026. The applicant and three other co-accused were nominated in the
F.I.R., wherein it is alleged that the applicant runs a hospital and the victim,
aged about 16 years, delivered a dead baby in the hospital. It is further
contended that the victim did not level any allegation against the applicant
when her statement was recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. and 183 of
B.N.S.S. She alleged in her statement that operation was done by Dr.
Bhavna, however, no such allegation has been levelled under Section 183 of
B.N.S.S. It is further contended that co-accused Bhavna Upadhyay, against
whom allegations were levelled by the victim under Section 180 of B.N.S.S.,
has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
16.09.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 31955 of 2026. The
applicant is not a doctor by profession; he established the hospital and
Medical Establishment Certificate was issued by C.M.O., Aligarh, on
26.09.2024. There is no criminal history of the applicant. Learned counsel
BAIL No. 34545 of 2026
2
for applicant further submits that applicant has been languishing in jail since
06.08.2026 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and will cooperate in trial.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant
regarding his involvement in the offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
record.
6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, the nature of accusations, the evidence brought on record, the
period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the absence of any
criminal antecedents, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for grant of
bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Ishan Upadhaya who is involved in the
aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release
order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the
Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence,
without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A IPC/ 269 B.N.S.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order
BAIL No. 34545 of 2026
3
to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./ 84 B.N.S.S.,
may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date
fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/ 209 B.N.S.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351 of B.N.S.S. If in the
opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default
as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 28, 2026
A.P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…