Allahabad High Court
VIKAS PASIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court held that, absent any compelling reason to the contrary and given the minor nature of the alleged injury and the presumption of innocence, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vikas Pasi, who was charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting an informant, resulting in injury to the informant's hand, a non‑vital part. The applicant contended that the allegations were false, the injury was minor, and that the case was tainted by personal enmity, also pointing to the release on bail of a co‑accused under the SC/ST Act. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The Court examined the nature of the alleged offence, the extent of injury, the applicant’s criminal history, and the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Finding no compelling reason to deny bail and noting the applicant had been in custody for over six months, the Court granted bail with standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged with multiple IPC offences including assault and related provisions.
- Whether the nature and severity of the alleged injury (to a non‑vital part) justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history and the co‑accused’s bail status under the SC/ST Act affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 329(3), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Subjects
- bail
- assault
- Indian Penal Code
- SC/ST Act
- presumption of innocence
- criminal history
- non‑vital injury
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39377 of 2025
Vikas Pasi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Bhushan Upadhyay, Neeja Srivastava, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Sandeep Singh
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
V.V.Upadhayay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the informant and Sri Roopak Chauvey, learned AGA,
for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with
the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.155 of 2025, under
Sections 191(2),191(3), 190, 109(1), 352, 351(3), 329(3) and 324(4) BNS,
Police Station Airport, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, as per allegation
due to assault made by applicant and others, one person sustained injury but
entire allegations levelled against them are totally false.
4. He further argued that even from the FIR and the statement of the
injured/informant recorded during investigation, which has been annexed at
page 43 of the paper book, it reflects that though applicant intended to cause
injury only on his hand through rod but he sustained injury on his head and,
therefore, as far as specific allegation made against the applicant, he caused
injury to the injured on his hande, which is non vital part.
5. He further argued that apart from above allegation of assault there is also
omnibus allegation of bald nature against the applicant and others but enmity
between both the sides appears to be admitted and it appears, due to
previous enmity such exaggerated facts have been narrated by the informant
in the FIR and in the statement.
6. He further argued that along with the applicant co-accused Jai Prakash
Dubey, who was hardened criminal, has also been made accused and against
BAIL No. 39377 of 2025
2
him there was also allegation with regard to provisions of SC/ST Act but his
appeal has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2026 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 11376 of 2025, which was filed by co-accused Jai
Prakash Dubey against the bail rejection order by the court concerned.
7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of three other cases but all the cases relate to Urban
Development Act and in these cases even applicant was not named in the
FIR.
8. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since
15.9.2025, i.e., for the last more than six months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant,
however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on
facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. However, as per allegation applicant and several others made assault in
which informant sustained injuries but it appears, due to assault made by
applicant, injured, i.e.,informant sustained injury on his hand, i.e., non vital
part.
12. Further, even there is allegation against co-accused Jai Prakash Dubey,
who was also hardened criminal with regard to the provisions of Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but when his bail
application was dismissed by the court concerned and he approached this
Court in criminal appeal then his appeal was allowed by this Court and he
was released him on bail.
13. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of three other cases and these cases appear to be minor in
nature but even in these cases applicant was not named in the FIR.
14. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since September, 2025,
,i.e., for the last more than six months.
15. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to
be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive
or preventive purpose.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
BAIL No. 39377 of 2025
3
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
18. Let the applicant-Vikas Pasi 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during
trial.
April 23, 2026
SKM
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…