Allahabad High Court
SUNIL YADAV @ SOPADUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The court held that the inconsistencies in the FIR, witness statements, and lack of medical evidence of injury create reasonable doubt, warranting the grant of bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sunil Yadav, accused under IPC Sections 109(1), 352 and 118(1) for allegedly stabbing a victim. The applicant claimed innocence, citing a three‑day delay in filing the FIR, contradictions between the FIR, the victim’s statement and witness testimonies, and medical reports showing no significant injury. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the grievous nature of the alleged injuries. The Court examined the nature of the offences, the evidentiary inconsistencies, and the applicant’s clean criminal record. Finding that the inconsistencies and lack of medical corroboration raised reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the bail application with conditions. The applicant was ordered to be released on personal bond and sureties, subject to compliance with stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused pending trial for offences under Sections 109(1), 352 and 118(1) of the IPC
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions in statements affect the bail decision
- Whether the absence of medical evidence of injury justifies granting bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 118(1), 352
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- Section 109
- Section 352
- Section 118
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- variance of statements
- criminal trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4379 of 2026
Sunil Yadav @ Sopadu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Balwant Kumar Singh, Sudhakar Yadav,
Vaishno Poojan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prashant Pandey
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant in the Court
today, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned counsel for the
informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
available on record.
3. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant
for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 139 of 2025, under Sections 109 (1),
352, 118 (1) B.N. S., Police Station Chitaipur, District Varanasi, during
pendency of trial.
4. Briefly stated, as per the allegations levelled and the incident narrated in
the FIR, which was lodged by the father of the injured against the applicant
and one unknown person, alleging that, while the applicant was abusing at
the Chat shop of the victim, which was objected by the injured, the applicant
stabbed his son Amit Kesari (injured) with a knife at his back. Meanwhile,
other unknown accused also came at the place of incident and caught hold
the injured at his neck and applicant again stabbed him at his lips and
shoulders.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It
is further submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on
24.8.2025, whereas the first information report was lodged after three days
on 27.8.2025 against the applicant and one unknown person. There is no
explanation for delay in lodging the first information report. It is further
BAIL No. 4379 of 2026
2
submitted that there are contradictions in the F. I. R. version and the
statement of the injured. There is variance at large in the statements of the
witnesses. As per the report of C. E. C. T.-Whole abdomen, No Diagnostic
Abnormality was seen. C. E. C. T. -Thorax report also does not indicate
any abnormality. It is lastly submitted that the applicant, who has no
criminal antecedents and is in jail since 1.1.2026, is entitled to be enlarged
on bail during trial.
6. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that the applicant is accused of causing grevious injuries to the injured.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all attending
facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that there is variance of the
facts narrated in the first information report and statement of the injured and
witnesses and the fact that the medical report of the injured does not indicate
any significant abnormality, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
case, the Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a
case for being enlarged on bail. The instant bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant Sunil Yadav alias Sopadu 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.
9. 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.
10. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
April 10, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…