Allowed

Rishabh Ojha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2025/10899/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving death due to assault under sections 3(5), 352, 109(1), 103(1) BNS, holding that the dispute was petty without premeditation and the applicant had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to specific conditions.

Rishabh Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10899 of 2025

Rishabh Ojha

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ramakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Anjani Kumar Shukla, Mukesh Kumar Tewari

¶9

Court No. - 12

¶10

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶11

Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the informant is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. Sri Anjani Kumar Shukla appears for the informant.

¶13

The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.68 of 2025 under sections 3(5), 352, 109(1), 103(1) BNS, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶14

In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on account of an attempt to stop construction on a public path, a report was made to the police authorities which had come and stop the illegal construction being raised by the accused named in the FIR and on the date of incident when the father of the informant tried to stop the construction on the public path, the accused came and caught hold of the family members including the brother and when the uncle tried to intervene, it was seen that the applicant attacked him with a sharp screwdriver consecutively, which resulted in substantial injuries and thereafter death.

¶15

In the light of the said allegations, the counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the injury report of the victim wherein two injuries were noticed - one being lacerated wound on the forehead and the x-ray of the head was advised. Subsequently, in the postmortem report, four injuries were noticed, which included lacerated wound on the left frontal region,

¶16

BAIL No. 10899 of 2025

¶17

¶18

top of left scapula region, end of scapula region and abrasion present on the left side back of the chest, which is also the cause of death. It is further argued that in terms of the statement recorded subsequently, the applicant was assigned the role of hitting the deceased with a sharp edged screwdriver, which according to the applicant cannot result in the injuries, as reflected in the postmortem report, which are lacerated wounds. It is further argued that the co-accused against whom, no allegation of the nature similar to the applicant were alleged, was enlarged on bail vide order dated 19.07.2025. It is thus argues that as the dispute had occurred on account of a petty dispute, the applicant who is aged about 22 years and has no criminal history may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

The counsel for the informant strongly oppose the bail application and draws my attention to the statement of the eye witness wherein it was alleged that the uncle of the informant was beaten repeatedly with a sharp edged screwdriver on the head, which is reflected in the postmortem report in the form of injuries and considering the gravity of the offence in which a person aged about 60 years was killed, no good ground for bail is made out. It is further argued that on account of fear, the informant are staying at a separate place. The counsel for the informant further draws my attention to the statement of Nitish Ojha, who had stated that the uncle, who had suffered injuries, had informed him that the applicant had caused the injuries, which according to the counsel for the informant would amount to a dying declaration also. He further argues that not even one witness has been examined so far. It is thus, argues that the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶20

Considering the submissions made at the bar and recorded above, prima-facie, the genesis of the dispute is the alleged laying down of tinshed on the place, which according to the informant was a public place, the premeditated intent for invoking under section 103 BNS were apparently missing. As the dispute had taken place on account of a petty dispute without there being any premeditated intent, required for prosecution under section 103 BNS at this stage, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and prima-facie, there is no material to suggest that the applicant, if enlarged on bail can have any adverse affect on the trial, the applicant who is in custody since

¶21

BAIL No. 10899 of 2025

¶22

¶23

25.03.2025 is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant Rishabh Ojha be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶25

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶26

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶27

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

The trial shall however be concluded expeditiously.

¶29

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶30

December 12, 2025

¶31

VNP/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rishabh Ojha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishabh Ojha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Dr. Bangali @ Sanjay Sarkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anoop @ Jabbar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hukum Singh Alias Virendra Singh Alias Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others