Allahabad High Court
RAJATversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the injuries and the evidence on record did not justify release of the accused.
Summary
The applicant, Rajat, filed a bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 470 of 2025) involving charges under Sections 118(1), 352, 351(2) and 109(1) of the B.N.S. He claimed innocence, alleging false implication and that the sole witness – the victim’s brother – was an interested party. The applicant highlighted the absence of an independent witness and no statement from the victim under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries – burns to the neck, head and hand – as noted by a doctor’s report. The Court, after reviewing the submissions and medical evidence, found the injuries dangerous to life and was not inclined to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during trial despite serious injuries to the alleged victim.
- Whether the lack of an independent witness and absence of a victim’s statement under Section 183 affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- serious injury
- medical evidence
- witness credibility
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9028 of 2026
Rajat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Bais
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shravana Kumar Yadav
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of informant in the Court today is
taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the
informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on
record.
3. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case
Crime No. 470 of 2025, under Sections 118(1), 352, 351(2) and 109(1) of
B.N.S., P.S. Sarsawa, District-Saharanpur, is seeking enlargement on bail
during the trial.
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 the allegation as
alleged in the first informant report is totally false and baseless. This
incident was only witnessed by the brother of the alleged victim and his
testimony cannot be considered credible, as he was an 'interested witness.'
There was no independent witness of the alleged incident. No statement
of the alleged victim was recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. He
lastly submitted that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents to his
discredit and he is in jail since 26.11.2025, is entitled to be enlarged on
bail during pendency of the trial.
5. The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by leaned counsel
appearing on behalf of informant, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
BAIL No. 9028 of 2026
2
6. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A.
and perused the material brought on record including the statement of
doctor, in which he has specifically stated that the injury sustained by
the injured could be dangerous to life as the body, i.e neck, head and
left hand have sustained burn injuries, hence this Court is not inclined
to enlarged the accused-applicant on bail.
7. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
April 20, 2026
Faridul
Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…