KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9846 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Ajit Kumar Mishra, Atul Kumar Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : Ajay Kumar, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant/
Karan Singh, for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 220 of 2025, under
Sections 109, 126(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police
Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application,
submits that, the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant
case and has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that, general
allegations of physical assault have been levelled by the complainant/
informant of this case against the applicant. It has further been alleged that,
the applicant along with other co-accused persons has assaulted the injured
persons, namely, Dharamveer (informant) and Nemat (brother of the
informant), who sustained grievous injuries. The injured persons were
assaulted by Anuruddh Yadav s/o Agyaram, Vineet Yadav, Shivam Yadav
and Shubham Yadav, sons of Karan Singh, Anil Yadav s/o Premchandra
Singh, Karan Singh s/o Jayveer Singh, Sandeep Yadav s/o Akhairam Singh
and Babloo Yadav s/o Maan Singh. However, prime role has been attributed
to Amit Kumar causing injuries with the help of Sariya and Vineet Yadav,
causing injuries with the help of country made pistol to the brother of the
informant, namely, Nemat. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that, the first information report was lodged on 24.5.2025 and as per the
medical reports of injured persons, all injuries were reported to be simple in
nature except injury No.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that, the charge sheet in the said case was filed on 17.6.2025 and thereafter,
                                                            BAIL No. 9846 of 2026
                                 2

the matter was re-investigated by the order of the Circle Officer and Section
109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was added on 24.9.2025 by
supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this matter, since
6.10.2025, criminal history of 23 cases has been explained and there is no
likelihood that, the accused-applicant, after release on bail, may flee from
the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that co-accused persons, namely Bablu Alias
Ravikant and Anil Yadav have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate
Benches of this Court vide orders dated 6.1.2026 and 11.2.2026, respectively
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.45665 of 2025 and 4046 of
2026 and the main role has been attributed to Amit Kumar and Vineet
Yadav, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State submits
that, the accused- applicant is a habitual offender and as much as having a
criminal history of 23 cases. The applicant failed to explain the details of
all the 23 cases, however the accused applicant has given a false statement in
para 28 of the bail application, as much as the applicant has been convicted
in Case Crime No.180/12, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427, 452,
504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Karhal, District
Mainpuri, as the accused- applicant suppressed the fact of conviction and has
simply stated that, the applicant is on bail, which is ambiguous, suspicious
and unclear. The applicant, in all fairness, ought to show his bonafide, would
have shown the correct fact that, the applicant has been convicted in
aforesaid Case Crime No.180/12 and thereafter, his sentence has been
suspended and he has been granted bail. Thus, the accused- applicant failed
to disclose the correct facts and has not shown any bonafide. Learned AGA
further submits that, there is a likelihood that, if the applicant is enlarged on
bail, he is likely to commit such acts and may indulge into similar criminal
activities, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned AGA further submits that, as per medical report of injured Nemat,
lacerated wound of size 5cm x 1cm on the middle of scalp is found, which is
skin deep and bleeding is also present and injury was kept under observation
and as per supplementary report, fracture in parietal bone of the injured
Nemat is seen, therefore, having regard to the manner, in which the crime
has been committed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail..

5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused
the record, it is evident that, fracture in parietal bone of the injured
Nemat was found and applicant has criminal history of 23 cases.
Though, the criminal history is not a ground to deny the bail, but the fact
                                                                                              BAIL No. 9846 of 2026
                                                                    3

                                    remains that, applicant is a convict in Case Crime No.180/12, under Sections
                                    147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860,
                                    Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, which is not fully explained and
                                    disclosed by the accused- applicant in a correct perspective and there is
                                    suppression of material fact. Thus, having regard to the evidence available
                                    on record against the applicant and considering the gravity of offence,
                                    injuries caused to the injured and suppression of material fact, I do not find
                                    any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the bail application
                                    moved on behalf of applicant - Karan Singh is hereby rejected.

                                    6. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of
                                    disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression
                                    of this Court on the merits of the case.

                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Gurpreet Singh
                                                                                               (Harvir Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
GURPREET SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad