Allahabad High Court
ANKITversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the later witness statement is unreliable, the co‑accused has been released on bail, and the applicant has been detained for an extended period.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ankit, who was accused under IPC sections 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 309(5) BNS for allegedly causing knife injuries. The prosecution’s case relied on a later statement of the injured party that named Ankit, whereas the earlier statement did not mention him, leading the defence to argue the later statement was unreliable. The court noted that a co‑accused, Rajan, had already been released on bail and that Ankit had been in custody for more than a year. While acknowledging Ankit’s criminal history of eight prior cases, most were theft offences and the applicant claimed police bias. Weighing these factors, the court concluded that Ankit was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying offence.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under sections 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 309(5) of the IPC
- Whether the later statement of the injured party naming the applicant is reliable for bail consideration
- Impact of the applicant’s prior criminal history on the bail decision
- Effect of the co‑accused’s bail on the applicant’s bail application
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention (over one year) warrants bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 309(5)
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- witness statement reliability
- criminal history
- IPC sections 115, 118, 109, 309
- Uttar Pradesh
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5030 of 2026
Ankit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tanay Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Vijay Shanker, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Tanay
Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra
Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.23 of 2025, under Sections 115(2),
118(1), 109, 309(5) BNS, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during
pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, according to the FIR, 3-4
unknown persons caused knife injuries to the son of the informant and
during investigation applicant has been made accused.
5. He further argued, according to the prosecution, incident was also
witnessed by uncle of the injured Liyaqat and he however, disclosed the
name of the applicant along with Rajan but only general role has been
assigned by him to all the accused.
6. He further argued, during investigation, when first statement of the
injured was recorded then he only disclosed the name of co-accused
Rajan and Basu and did not even disclose the name of applicant but when
after statement of alleged eye-witness Liyaqat, the uncle of the injured his
BAIL No. 5030 of 2026
2
second statement was recorded then he disclosed the name of applicant
and stated that applicant caused knife injuries to him.
7. He further argued, subsequent statement of the injured prima facie
appears to be un-reliabe as if applicant would have caused injuries to him
then he would have disclosed this fact in his first statement.
8. He further argued, even co-accused Rajan has been released on bail by
co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his bail order has been annexed along
with the instant bail application.
9. He next submits, actually police is highly inimical with the applicant
and earlier also in number of false cases of theft police had implicated
him and therefore, in this case during investigation applicant has been
made accused.
10. He further argued, criminal history of 8 cases of the applicant has
been explained in the instant bail application and majority of the cases
were of theft and however, one case is of Section 109 BNS but it is a case
of police encounter no injury case.
11. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
14.02.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.
12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits,
injured in his subsequent statement categorically stated that applicant
caused knife injury to him but could not dispute the fact that when his
first statement was recorded then he did not even disclose the name of the
applicant.
13. Learned AGA further submits, however, apart from the present case
applicant is having criminal history of eight other cases but he could not
dispute the fact that his criminal history has been explained in the
supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and
majority of the cases were of theft in which during investigation applicant
has been made accused.
14. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter
applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 i.e. for last more than a year.
BAIL No. 5030 of 2026
3
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the cast.
16. However, it reflects, injured in his second statement recorded during
investigation stated that applicant caused knife injuries to him but earlier
when his first statement was recorded then he did not even disclose the
name of the applicant.
17. Further, however, as per prosecution, Liyaqat, the uncle of the injured
was eye-witness and he disclosed the name of the applicant in his
statement recorded during investigation but it reflects, along with the
applicant he also disclosed the name of co-accused Basu and Rajan and
only general role has been assigned by him to all and co-accused Rajan
has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
18. Further, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal
history of eight other cases but his criminal history has been explained
and majority of the cases were of theft and in almost all the cases it
appears, police made him accused during investigation.
19. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 i.e.
for last more than a year.
20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
22. Let the applicant -Ankit 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
BAIL No. 5030 of 2026
4
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
23. 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.
24. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 5, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…