Allahabad High Court

ANKITversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as his role mirrors that of a co‑accused already released on bail and no substantive merit of the case was expressed to deny bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ankit, who was accused under IPC sections 109(1), 115(2), 352 and a provision of the Bombay Narcotic Substances Act in a case pending before the trial court. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR, and that his alleged role was distinct from the main accused, citing that a co‑accused with a similar role had already been released on bail. The State opposed bail, contending that the injury to the victim was grievous, but could not refute the fact that the co‑accused had been granted bail. After weighing the nature of the offence, the similarity of the applicant’s role to the co‑accused, and the lack of any adverse finding, the Court allowed the bail application. The Court ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions and verification of identity.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged under sections 109, 115, 352 of the IPC and the Bombay Narcotic Substances Act despite the alleged seriousness of the offence.
Whether the fact that a co‑accused with a similar role has been released on bail warrants granting bail to the applicant.
Whether the grievous nature of the victim's injury precludes the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Bombay Narcotic Substances Act — s. 3(5)
Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115, 352

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
IPC sections 109
IPC section 115
IPC section 352
Bombay Narcotic Substances Act
grievous injury
co‑accused similarity

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8911 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhisek Rai, Prabhakar Singh, Ravindra
Nath Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jeetendra Kesharwani, Siddharth
Niranjan

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 18 of 2026, under Sections-109 (1), 115 (2), 352 and
3 (5) B. N. S., Police Station Jani, District Meerut, during pendency of the
trial before the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely
been implicated in this case. He next submitted that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. His name as an accused, in the present
case, surfaced for the first time, during investigation. He has further
submitted that the role of firing has been attributed to the named co-accused
Satyam Saini and the role, which has been assigned to the applicant, is
clearly distinguishable from that of the main accused Satyam Saini. He also
submitted that the physical condition of the injured is normal and out of
danger as on date. He has also stated that the co-accused Ayush, who has
been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide
order dated 23.3.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8793
of 2026, therefore, the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents and is in
jail since 12.1.2026, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the
trial.

4. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature,
hence the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he could
not dispute the factual aspect that the co-accused, Ayush, who has been
BAIL No. 8911 of 2026
2

assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court.

5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all attending
facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the role of applicant is
similar to that of the co-accused Ayush, who has been enlarged on bail by
this Court, but without expressing any opinion merits of the case, the
applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail. The instant bail
application is allowed.

6. 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 or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

7. 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.

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

April 20, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…