Anshu Alias Ansh and Another vs State of U.P.

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicants on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 213 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109(1) BNS, Police Station- Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that in the FIR, general allegations have been made against all the accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. He further submitted that no weapon has been recovered in the alleged incident. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicants are in languishing in jail since 17.06.2025. In case, they are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that X-ray report and CT Scan of the injured shows that there are two fractures on the head; one is multifragmetory communited displaced fracture on the left head frontal bone and second depressed fracture sinus linear displayed fresher anterior wall on right medulla. Total five injuries are received by the injured and out of which,

BAIL No. 34560 of 2025

2

two injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account of the fact that the injured received five injuries and X-Ray report and CT Scan report show that two injuries i.e. communited fracture on the head as well as fracture sinus linear displayed fresher on right medulla are grievous in nature, therefore, this Court does not incline to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶18

October 14, 2025 A.Kr.

Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anshu Alias Ansh and Another v. State of U.P.