Allahabad High Court
CHHOTU @ ANIL CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
Bail cannot be granted where the applicant is specifically implicated in a knife‑stabbing causing grievous injury and the evidence is substantial.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court examined a bail application filed by Chhotu alias Anil Chauhan, who is charged in FIR No. 249 of 2025 for allegedly stabbing Jai Prakash Singh with a knife, causing grievous injuries. The applicant claimed innocence, asserting that he was not arrested at the scene, no knife was recovered, and he has no prior criminal record, and therefore sought bail during trial. The State opposed, relying on the FIR, medical reports detailing severe internal injuries, and witness statements that specifically identified the applicant as the assailant. The Court considered the nature of the offences under IPC sections 109(1), 351(3), 352, 3(5) B.N.S. and Arms Act sections 4 and 25, and the seriousness of the injuries. Concluding that the evidence substantially linked the applicant to the stabbing and that the injuries were grave, the Court held that bail could not be granted. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with knife‑stabbing causing grievous injury under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the evidence, including medical reports and witness identification, justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 351(3), 352, 3(5) B.N.S.
Subjects
- bail
- grievous hurt
- knife assault
- IPC
- Arms Act
- medical evidence
- trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6745 of 2026
Chhotu @ Anil Chauhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kailash Nath Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.
2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime
no. 249 of 2025, under Sections 109 (1), 351 (3), 352, 3 (5) B. N. S. and
Sections-4/25 of Arms Act, P. S. Zafrabad, District-Jaunpur, is seeking
enlargement on bail during the trial.
3. In the F. I. R., which was lodged by the complainant, namely, Amit Singh,
who is neighbour of the injured Jai Prakash Singh, allegations of causing
knife injury have been levelled against three named persons, including the
applicant and one unnamed person. F. I. R. further narrates that in the
incident injured Jai Prakash Singh has sustained grevious injuries, which are
fatal to life and he is undergoing treatment in the hospital.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due
to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that general role of assault with
knife on the injured person has been made against three named, including
the applicant and one unknown person. He further stated that the applicant
was neither arrested from the spot nor any knife was recovered from the
spot. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 28.10.2025
and has no criminal antecedent, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during
pendency of the trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for
bail and submitted that the allegation of stabbing with knife in the stomach
of the injured, has been levelled against the applicant.
6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence,
BAIL No. 6745 of 2026
2
evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all
attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured as
well as all other witnesses have specifically assigned the role of stabbing the
injured in his stomach to the applicant. The injuries sustained by the injured
are produced hereinbelow:-
"PUS C/S(30/10/25) OPERATIVE PROCEDURE, OPERATIVE
FINDINGS ELPL PRIMARY REPAIR OF TRANSVERSE COLON
PERFORATION WITH PROXIMAL LOOP ILEOSTOMY WITH
PRIMARY REPAIR OF GASTRIC PERFORATION DONE UNDER
GA ON 28/10/25, CULTURE STERILE 100 ml of serosanguinous
content aspirated from abdomen. 4x5 cm rent present over greater
omentum and lesser sac, 2 perforation of 1x1 cm and 2x2 cm over
antemesentric border of mid transverse colon, 1x1 cm rent over greater
curvature of somach in the posterior aspect pre pyloric, Transverse colon
perforation repaired in 2layers, Gastric perforation repaired with silk 20
crb, Proximal loop ileostomy done 1.5 feet from icr, Primary repair of
abdominal wall wound done with Prolene 10 and nylon 20 CCN, 32 Fr.
ADR drain placed in subhepatic and pelvis. Blood Transfusion I UNIT
WB TRANSFUSED ON 29/10/25 AND 1 UNIT TRANSFUSED ON
30/10/25, Blood Group AB Positive, Wound Infection No. Course During
Hospital Stav: The Patient Presented To The ER With The Above
Mentioned Complaints And Was Investigated, Admitted And Managed
With The Abave Mentioned Procedures. The Drain Output On Pod1 was
100 MI (Serosanguinous) In Pelvic Drain which gradually became
minimal and was removed on POD 6 And 200 MI (Serosanguinous) In
SubHepatic Drain Which Reduced To Minimal On POD S and was
subsequently removed on POD 5.Stoma became functional on POD 3. RT
Output On Pod 1 Was 100 MI (Bilious) Which Reduced To Minimal And
Was Removed On POD 4."
7. Keeping in view the nature of the injures sustained by the injured, this
Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, this bail application moved on behalf of applicant Chhotu
alias Anil Chauhan is rejected.
April 21, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…