Allahabad High Court

RAJ KAMAL PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The bail application is rejected as it lacks merit and the applicant remains the principal accused in the FIR.

Summary

The applicant, a police personnel, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 191(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 for allegedly assaulting a deceased army man, causing grievous injuries. The prosecution’s version held the applicant as the principal assailant, while the informant later altered his statement, attributing the assault to co‑accused Dinesh Kumar Yadav, a claim supported by two additional eyewitnesses. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and that the co‑accused had already been released on bail, thus he should also be granted bail. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the applicant’s presence in the FIR as the main assailant. The Court, after considering the material, found the bail application devoid of merit and rejected it, while directing the trial to be expedited in line with Supreme Court precedents.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the specified sections of the B.N.S., 2023 in view of the allegations and change in witness statements.
Whether the alteration of the informant’s testimony and the presence of other eyewitnesses affect the applicant’s eligibility for bail.
Whether the applicant’s status as a police personnel influences the decision on bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 191(2), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
false implication
assault
grievous hurt
witness testimony
trial expeditious

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9452 of 2026

Raj Kamal Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vibhu Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., R.P.S. Chauhan

Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.22 out of 116)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ashutosh,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Atmesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the
informant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the
State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.379 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2) and 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, Police
Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the informant's son (now deceased) was an
Army personnel and was returning from a marriage ceremony in his car
along with two other persons, namely Karan Singh and Anurag Singh. At the
same time, the applicant was also allegedly travelling in his Scorpio car
bearing registration no. UP 70EB 5664.

5. It is alleged that a dispute arose between the two parties over overtaking
of their vehicles. During the course of the said altercation, the co-accused
person is stated to have intercepted the car of the deceased, whereupon the
applicant allegedly assaulted the deceased on his head, thereby causing
grievous injuries to him on 30.11.2025 at about 2:00 a.m.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the case. The statement of the informant was
subsequently recorded, and he has changed his version and has stated that
BAIL No. 9452 of 2026
2

the deceased was assaulted by co-accused Dinesh Kumar Yadav. Two
additional eye-witnesses, namely Karan Singh and Anurag Singh, have been
introduced subsequently, whose statements were recorded belatedly, and all
of the witnesses have attributed the role of assaulting the deceased to co-
accused Dinesh Kumar Yadav.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said
allegations prove the innocence of the applicant. The applicant has simply
been nominated in the FIR on account of his being a police personnel. The
said co-accused, Dinesh Kumar Yadav, who was subsequently nominated by
the informant, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
11.03.2026, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8196 of 2026; as
such, the applicant is also entitled to bail. He is in jail since 01.12.2025 and
is ready to cooperate with the trial. In case he is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
that the applicant is named in the FIR and has been assigned the role of
assaulting the deceased in it being the main assailant, I do not find it a fit
case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of
merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.

11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026/(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…