Allahabad High Court
BAIL/34680/2026 of SHADAB Vs STATE OF U.P. on 28 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34680 of 2026 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri Lal Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State. 1A. Sri Tripathi,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34680 of 2026
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri Lal Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State. 1A. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant hands up the supplementary affidavit annexing the compromise in support of bail application, the same is taken on record.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused- Shadab to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2026, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 191(2),118(1) BNS, P.S.- Afzalgarh, District- Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused applicant and informant are of same family. There was some altercation between the parties, which led to the lodging of FIR against five accused including the accused/applicant, wherein the allegation of assaulting Adiba and Bilal with knife was attributed on the accused persons; as both the parties are of same family, there is compromise between them, wherein it is stated by the injured and informant that there was some altercation between the parties, which led to lodging of FIR and he does not want to continue with the case. The charge sheet is submitted. The accused/applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 29.05.2026. Hence, seeks to be enlarged on bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amish Yadav, Saurabh Tripathi, Shantanu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Lal Bahadur Yadav Shadab .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail. 4A. Learned counsel for the informant concedes the compromise.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the compromise between the parties, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. The accused/applicant 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 court concerned in view of observation made by the Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal September 29, 2026 Krishna* BAIL No. 34680 of 2026 2 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad