Allahabad High Court
SHIVANSH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, a Class‑XII student, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 444 of 2025 alleging that he stabbed a victim with a knife, violating Section 109 of the B.N.S. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, had no prior record, and that no weapon or incriminating material was recovered. The State, through the informant and the Additional Government Advocate, opposed bail, relying on a CT‑scan and a doctor’s report indicating severe, potentially fatal injuries to the victim. After reviewing the medical evidence and the seriousness of the alleged offence, the Court found the circumstances did not warrant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the trial despite the seriousness of the alleged assault and the medical evidence of fatal injuries.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- arms act
- serious injury
- medical evidence
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4977 of 2026
Shivansh Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hari Bans Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shailesh Kumar Yadav
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of applicant in the Court today
is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case
Crime No. 444 of 2025, under Section 109 of B.N.S. and Section 4/25
Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Mau, District Mau, is seeking enlargement on
bail during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the first information
report the allegation of physical assault by knife upon the victim has been
leveled against the applicant. He next submitted that the applicant is a
student of Class-XII and he has not committed any offence and has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He
further submitted that no incriminating article or material has been
recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. He lastly
submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 25.12.2025 and has no
criminal antecedents to his discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail
during pendency of the trial.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, as
well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
They have also placed reliance upon the report of CECT Thorax and
statement of doctor. The C.T. Scan report suggested "Right hemo-
BAIL No. 4977 of 2026
2
pneumothorax and atelectasis / consolidation posterior segment right
upper lobe and right lower lobe; ICD tube in situ right side". Doctor
Pradeep Kumar (E.M.O.), District Hospital, Mau in his statement has
specifically stated that the injury sustained by the injured was fatal to
life, and in view of the above, the accused-applicant is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned
counsel for the informant, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record, as well as radiological report and the statement of
doctor, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail during
the trial, hence this bail application is rejected.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
April 21, 2026
Faridul
Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…