BAIL/32521/2026 of DEVENDRA Vs STATE OF U.P. on 13 September 2026

1. Sri Satish Chandra Tiwari, learned advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, the same is taken on record. 1A. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused- Devendra to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 117(2), 115(2), 352, 109 of BNS, P.S.- Bisauli, District- Budaun during the pendency of trial.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 14.12.2025 lodged belatedly for the initial incident dated 12.12.2025 and subsequent incident dated 14.12.2025. It is the allegation in the FIR lodged against six persons including the accused applicant that the accused persons have assaulted the son of informant Satyaveer on 12.12.2025 wherein he suffered hair line fracture of 4th left rib. It is further contended that FIR has not been lodged on the date of incident. Subsequently on 14.12.2025 the injured Satyaveer was taken to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Devendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

the police station from where he was sent for medico legal examination. In the meantime, the accused persons have barged into the house of the informant and assaulted Munish Kumar and Kusumwati. It is further contended that both of them suffered injuries. It is further contended that it is because of the old enmity that the FIR has been lodged. The charge sheet has been submitted. The applicant has five cases criminal history. In one case, he is on bail and in one case, final report has been submitted and in three cases, he has not been arrested as no summons have been issued. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.1.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail and submits that the bail application of co- accused Munnalal, who is also framed in the present case, has been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. All the accused persons had similar role. As such, submits that the bail application should be rejected.

5. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the charge sheet has been submitted wherein the implication of one of the accused Bhagwan Singh has been found to be false as such, he has not been charge sheeted.

6. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Considering the general role of all the accused wherein three persons suffered injuries out of them Satyaveer, whose injury is grievous in nature, has not been reported on the date of injuries. There is old enmity between the parties, the accused applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

8. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.

9. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid BAIL No. 32521 of 2026

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].

10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal. September 14, 2026 Krishna* BAIL No. 32521 of 2026

(Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad