Allahabad High Court

SHADABversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 April 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted to the applicant.

Summary

The applicant, Shadab, was charged under IPC sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 352 and 361(3) for allegedly assaulting three persons with a baton, causing head injuries. He sought bail, claiming innocence, a delayed FIR, lack of independent witnesses and no prior criminal record. The State argued that the injuries were grievous and could have been fatal, and that the applicant was a principal participant. The court noted the presence of independent witnesses who identified the applicant as part of the assault and considered the seriousness of the offences. Consequently, the court refused to enlarge bail and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during trial for offences involving alleged grievous injuries under the IPC.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of independent witnesses justify granting bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 352, 361(3)

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
grievous hurt
assault
delay in FIR
independent witnesses

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9928 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravi Shekhar Sharma

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 15 of
2026, under Sections 109, 118 (1), 115 (2), 352, 361 (3) B.N.S., P. S. Hafizpur,
District-Hapur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

3. As per the F. I. R. allegations, which was lodged by the brother of the injured, the
prosecution case is that the applicant along with three co-accused, namely Sartaj,
Farruq and Samedin, assaulted his brother Junaid, his cousin Tazkar and Murslin with
baton (lathi and danda), resultantly, Junaid, Tazkar and Murslin sustained injuries in
their head.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 incident is alleged to have taken place on 21.1.2026 at about
19.30 hrs., whereas the F. I. R. of the same was lodged on the next day, i. e. 22.1.2026
at about 15.57 hrs. and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the first
information report, which suggests that the F. I. R. was lodged after due deliberation
and as an afterthought. He next submitted that though the incident is alleged to have
taken place at the public place in a densely populated area but the prosecution could
not produce any independent witness. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in
jail since 11.2.2026 and has no criminal antecedents, is entitled to be enlarged on bail
during pendency of the trial.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have opposed
the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused caused
grevious injuries to the injured in their head, which could have proved fatal to their
lives, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The details of the
injuries caused to injured Tazgar, Mursalin and Junaid are as under:-
BAIL No. 9928 of 2026
2

"MLPC No. E/267/26
Date 27.1.26
Examined Tazgar S/o Akil aged about 28 yr/M R/o Vill- Ghunrala Ps Hafizpur
Hapur on dated 21.1.26 at 10.25 PM
B/B-H.G.
875 Rajpal Singh Ps Hafizpur Hapur.
Advice X-Ray Head & CT Scan Head.
CT Scan done on dated 23.1.26 orbit diagnostic center radiologist Dr. Deepak
Tomer report shows.
Component of S.D.H.
is noted involving the right parietal labe measuring appoximally 2 m.m.
in width fracture is noted involving the right parielal labe of Head.
Opinion- As per radiologist Dr. Deepak Tomer report shows component of
S.D.H.
involving the right parietal lobe and fracture involving the Rt parietal bone of
head so injury No. (1) grievous in nature.

MLPC No. E/265/26
Date-27.1.26
Examined Mursalin S/o Rahil aged about 25 Yr/M R/o Ghungrala P/s Hafizpur
Dist Hapur on dated 21/1/26 at 10.15 PM in D.C.H.
Hapur
B/B-HG 875 Rajpal Singh Ps. Hafizpur Hapur.
Advice X-Ray Rt Shoulder AP View injury No. (4)/Lat view
X-Ray Rt Knee- AP view/Lat view- injury No. (6)
X-ray done on dated 23.1.2026 orbit diagnosis center Meerut Reporting Dr.
Deepak Tomer
Consultant radiologist report show.
X-Ray Rt Shoulder- No significant abnormalities seen.
X-Ray Rt Leg with Knee- Show no significant abnormality.
Opinion- As per radiologist reports shows no injury seen in bony region so injury
No. (4) & (6) both are simple in nature.

MLPC No. E/266/26
Examined Junaid S/o Habil aged about 18 Yr/MR/o Ghungral P/s Halizpur Distt.
Hapur on dated 21.1.26 at 10.20 PM in D.C.H. Hapur B/B H.G. 875 Rajpal Singh
P/s Hafizpur Hapur.
Advice X-Ray Head AP view/Lat view Injury No. (1)
X-Ray Rt Shoulder AP view/Lat view injury No. (3)
X-Ray Rt Knee- AP view/Lat view- injury no.
(4)
X-Ray Nose- AP view/Lat view injury no. (2)
C.T. Scan Head report shows normal.
BAIL No. 9928 of 2026
3

X-Ra Head report not present
X-ray Rt shoulder report not present.
X-Ray Rt Knee report not present.
X-Ray nose AP view shows no significant abnormality radiologist advice X-Ray
Nose lateral view
X-Ray nose lateral view report not present.
Opinion-As per radiologist Deepak Tomer radiologist orbit diagnostic center
shows no bony injury seen so all injury simple in nature."

6. 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 independent witnesses, namely Shakeel
and Aamir have specifically stated that the applicant along with other co-accused
assaulted Junaid and Murslin in his head with lathi and danda, further specifying that
Tazgar was assaulted with any sharp edged weapon in his head, which could have
proved fatal to his life, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, Shadab is
rejected.

April 8, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…