Allahabad High Court

GOLU PATEL @ BEER BAJARANGI PATELversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Golu Patel, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 300 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 191(2), 351(3) and 352 of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was lodged four days after the incident, that the medical report did not show any grievous injury, and that the prosecution had not identified him as the assailant. The State opposed bail, asserting that there was ample evidence of his involvement. After reviewing the submissions, the record, the length of the applicant's pre‑trial detention and his limited criminal history, the Court found that the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties and several conditions to ensure his presence at trial. The order also clarified that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the alleged offences under the B.N.S.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of conclusive medical evidence justify granting bail
Whether the applicant's prior criminal record precludes bail
Whether the conditions imposed by the Court are appropriate under the relevant statutes

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 191(2), 209, 351(3), 352, 84
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) — s. 82
Indian Penal Code (IPC) — s. 174-A, 229-A

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
delay in FIR
medical evidence
criminal antecedents
conditions of bail
section 313 Cr.P.C.
section 351 B.N.S.

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34560 of 2026

Golu Patel @ Beer Bajarangi Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Raghawendra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State of U.P.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
191(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ballia.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. was lodged
against the applicant and co-accused Pawan Chaubey and five-six unknown
persons on 31.07.2026, in respect of alleged incident dated 27.07.2026.
General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant
and other co-accused. It is next submitted that the delay of four days in
lodging the F.I.R. has not been satisfactorily explained. As per the injury
report of injured, he sustained a sharp forced injury on back of neck,
however, when statement of the injured was recorded he did not specify as to
who was author of the said injury. As per X-ray report, nothing abnormality
was detected. There is no supplementary medical report of the injured. It is
nowhere alleged by the prosecution that the injuries were grievous in nature
or dangerous to life. It is further contended that no offence as alleged under
Section 109(1) of B.N.S. is made out against the present applicant. The
criminal history of one case of the applicant has been explained in paragraph
BAIL No. 34560 of 2026
2

no. 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 27.09.2026. Learned counsel for
applicant further submits that applicant has been languishing in jail since
02.08.2026 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and will cooperate in trial.

5. 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.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
record.

7. 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, explanation of 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.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Golu Patel @ Beer Bajarangi Patel 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. 34560 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.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

11. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…