Allahabad High Court
BAIL/33326/2026 of RAVI Vs STATE OF U.P. on 17 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33326 of 2026 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamal Singh, learned advocate, holding the brief, appeared for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 1A. None appeared for the informant. 2. The present
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33326 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 Kamal Singh, learned advocate, holding the brief, appeared for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 1A. None appeared for the informant.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused- Ravi to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2026, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, P.S.- Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun, during the pendency of trial
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the FIR dated 04.03.2026 lodged after a delay for the incident occurred on 03.03.2026 at about 19:00 hrs. The informant-Chandini Pal has lodged the FIR against four named persons including the accused/applicant with the allegation that the accused persons have barged into the house of the informant and started assaulting with kicks and fists. The applicant and opposite party are neighbours. There is some dispute between them. It is the contention of learned counsel that the allegation is of hitting the mother-in-law of informant, namely, Sheela with a brick. The injured suffered three injuries out of which one is fracture of parietal bone. It is the contention of learned counsel that the act does not come within the purview of attempt to murder. The investigation is continuing. The accused/applicant has no criminal history. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Singh Tomar, Santosh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
21.07.2026. He seeks to be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the nature of injuries and number of accused person and the role assigned, 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 18, 2026 Shivangi BAIL No. 33326 of 2026 2 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad