Vijay Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10023 of 2025

Vijay Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Lko.	Chief Sec	y./Prin.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Gauri Khan	Suwan Pandey,	Wali Nawaz
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Bhoos	Aprajita Shuk han	la, Chandra

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

2. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Chandr Bhoosan Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶11

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record.

¶12

4. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.98 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 117(2), 324(4), 333, 109(1), 110, 352, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Mahigawan, District Lucknow North (Commissionerate Lucknow).

¶13

5. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 02.08.2025 at about 9:30 a.m., due to old enmity, Santosh Singh, Vijay Singh, Aryan Singh, Aditya, and other family members attacked the younger brother of the informant with the intention to kill him. When he tried to save himself by locking the room, the accused persons broke open the door and assaulted him on the head. On hearing the commotion, the informant’s mother, Aasha Singh, and nephew, Sachin Singh, reached the spot and were also injured during the assault. The mother of the informant became unconscious, and his nephew sustained a

¶14

BAIL No. 10023 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

fracture in his hand. The police reached the spot, and the injured were taken to the hospital, from where the mother was referred to the Trauma Centre.

¶17

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cross cases have been registered by both sides. It is stated that from the side of the applicant, two persons have sustained injuries, while from the complainant’s side, three persons, namely Arun, Asha, and Sachin, are injured. It is further submitted that only general allegations have been levelled in the prosecution case as well as in the statements of the injured witnesses. The true and correct version of the incident has not been presented by the prosecution while lodging the FIR, as the injuries sustained by the applicant’s side have not been explained.

¶18

7. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

8. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Learned A.G.A. submits that all three injured persons in the present case have sustained grievous injuries; however, he does not dispute that only general allegations have been made and no specific role or allegation has been attributed to the applicant by any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶21

10. On due consideration of the facts that cross cases have been registered by both sides; there is no specific allegation against the present applicant; the applicant has duly explained the criminal history of two cases in paragraph 14 of the bail application; the charge sheet has been filed in the matter; and the applicant is in custody since 03.08.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶23

12. Let the applicant Vijay Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime

¶24

BAIL No. 10023 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶27

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶28

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶29

(iii) 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.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶32

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶33

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶34

October 28, 2025

¶35

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶36

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Tarun Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anuj Singh Rajawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munna @ Shoaib @ Mohammad Shoaib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Janki Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Miss Chayapha Thongphun @ Darin Chakthanapat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.