Allahabad High Court
RAVIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant Ravi.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ravi, who was charged under Section 109(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 25 and 28 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at police during an attempted arrest, though no police officer was injured. Ravi claimed the weapon and cartridge recovered from him were planted and pointed out that a co‑accused, Monu @ Dharmendra, in identical circumstances had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing Ravi's extensive criminal history and labeling him a repeat offender. The Court noted the absence of any injury, the parity with the co‑accused’s bail, and the lack of conviction in his other cases, and therefore decided to grant bail subject to standard conditions. Ravi was ordered to be released on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and any further criminal activity.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under Section 109(1) IPC and the Arms Act when no injury to police is alleged.
- Whether the accused's prior criminal history and alleged repeat offending justify denial of bail.
- Whether the bail granted to a co‑accused in identical circumstances mandates similar relief for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 28, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- repeat offender
- false implication
- no injury
- co-accused parity
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8175 of 2026
Ravi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Masoom Alam, Vikas Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for
the State.
2. This bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 630 of 2025, under Section 109(1) BNS and
Section 3/25/28 Arms Act, police station Nai Mandi, district
Muzaffarnagar during the pendendcy of the trial.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant is said to have fired at the police party, which was
supposedly arresting him. No police personnel have received any
injury. Co-accused Monu @ Dharmendra, who was similarly
arrested along with the applicant, has been granted bail by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 3082 of 2026. A country-made pistol and a live cartridge have
been recovered from the applicant, which appear to be planted.
The applicant has a criminal history of five other cases. However,
he is not a previous convict and is on bail in other cases.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail; however, he
could not dispute that the case of the applicant is at par with that of
the co-accused Monu @ Dharmendra. Learned A.G.A., however,
has stated that the applicant has a long criminal history and is a
BAIL No. 8175 of 2026
2
repeat offender; as such, he may not be considered for grant of
bail.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.
6. Taking into account the fact that this is a case involving no injury
and that the similarly situated co-accused Monu @ Dharmendra
has been granted bail by this Court, I deem it appropriate to grant
bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant Ravi be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
shall not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; shall
appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed, unless
personal appearance is exempted
2. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the pendency
of the trial; and shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court
concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
10. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are
solely for the purposes of deciding this bail application and shall
not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
May 5, 2026
Sumaira
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUMAIRA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…