Allahabad High Court

SUMITversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The Court held that, in the absence of a specific allegation against the applicant and considering his clean record and the precedent of parity, bail should be granted with appropriate conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sumit, accused in a case involving alleged assault with hard and blunt objects and a sharp weapon. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR and medical report did not assign him a specific role in causing grievous injury, and that co‑accused had already been released on bail. The State opposed bail, contending that innocence cannot be determined pre‑trial and that the applicant might re‑offend. The Court noted the absence of a specific allegation against the applicant, the submission of the charge‑sheet, his clean record, and the principle of liberty under Article 21, relying on several Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties and strict conditions to prevent tampering or non‑appearance.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused named in the FIR when no specific role in the alleged offence is established.
Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused already on bail mandates release of the applicant.
Whether there is a risk of flight, evidence tampering, or repeat offence justifying denial of bail.
Application of Article 21 of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents to bail decisions.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 191(2), 3(5), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
Indian Penal Code
Article 21
parity
evidence tampering
flight risk
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5756 of 2026

Sumit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sandeep Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned
AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant
Sumit seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.369 of 2025, under
Sections 109(1), 352, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 3(5), 117(2) B.N.S., Police
Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar.

3. Tersely, as per the allegation contained in the FIR six accused persons
including the applicant have caused injury with hard and blunt object and
sharp weapon to injured persons, namely Rajendra and Raghu.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has
not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely
implicated in this case due to previous criminal rivalry. Applicant is
languishing in jail since 6.12.2025. It is submitted that though applicant is
named in the FIR but no specific and separate role of applicant regarding
causing grievous injury to the injured persons has been assigned either in the
FIR or in the statement of injured persons. It is further submitted that one
criminal case being Case Crime No.556 of 2019 was registered by the
applicant side against the informant side. It is argued that common and
general role of all the accused persons has been assigned in the statement of
injured persons. It is further argued that as per the medical report available
on record the injuries sustained by the injured person are simple in nature
except one grievous injury (fracture in hand) sustained by injured Rajendra
BAIL No. 5756 of 2026
2

which is on non-vital part but he has not assigned the specific role of causing
grievous injury to him. It is next argued that co-accused Ramkumar, Deepak
@ Deepu having similar role have already been enlarged on bail by this
Court vide order dated 23.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos.5395 of 2026, 5588 of 2026 respectively and parity is sought in the
matter. It is lastly submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his
credit and since charge-sheet has already been submitted on 21.12.2025,
therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing
the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take
sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of
justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has
been prayed for.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant
by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-
trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further
submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge
in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the
fact that though applicant is named in the FIR but no specific and separate
role of applicant regarding causing grievous injury to the injured persons has
been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of injured persons, one
criminal case being Case Crime No.556 of 2019 was registered by the
applicant side against the informant side, common and general role of all the
accused persons has been assigned in the statement of injured persons, as per
the medical report available on record the injuries sustained by the injured
person are simple in nature except one grievous injury (fracture in hand)
sustained by injured Rajendra which is on non-vital part but he has not
assigned the specific role of causing grievous injury to him, co-accused
Ramkumar, Deepak @ Deepu having similar role have already been
enlarged on bail, charge-sheet has already been submitted, he has no
criminal antecedents to his credit, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding
conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia
vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex
Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC
51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the
BAIL No. 5756 of 2026
3

applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his
furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in Court.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him.

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order
to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him
strictly, in accordance with law.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the trial court.

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

February 24, 2026
RA
(Santosh Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…