Allowed¶15

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025BAIL/38769/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Vivek Varma, J., 06.11.2025 — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38769 of 2025, Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. — bail under S. 483 BNSS in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 BNS, P.S. Karhal, Mainpuri — FIR delay, single unidentified head injury on deceased Arvind, simple injuries on co-victims, vague allegations, 5+ months custody, charge sheet filed — bail allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Anil Kumar released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) appearance on dates fixed by the trial court; (ii) no tampering with prosecution evidence; (iii) no pressurising of prosecution witnesses; breach entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation before this Court.

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Anil Kumar, arraigned in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 BNS, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Court's answer

Prima facie, per the FIR, the applicant along with three named accused is alleged to have assaulted five persons; the informant's husband Arvind succumbed to his injuries while the other injured persons suffered simple injuries; the postmortem showed three injuries on the deceased, one on the head region and others on non-vital parts; the author of the single head injury is not known at this stage; vague and general allegations have been levelled.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The applicant has remained confined for more than five months; with the charge sheet submitted there is no hope of early conclusion of trial; the State has brought no reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if enlarged, would tamper with evidence, delay the trial or intimidate witnesses; accordingly, without commenting on merits, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Key takeaways

Bail is granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions that the applicant shall appear on dates fixed by the trial court, shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, and shall not pressurise prosecution witnesses; breach entitles the prosecution to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 BNS, Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri — deceased (informant's husband) had a single head injury whose author is unknown at this stage; injuries on other victims simple; vague and general allegations against applicant; custody exceeding five months with charge sheet filed and no hope of early trial conclusion; no reasonable apprehension of tampering, delay or intimidation shown by the State — applicant enlarged on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering and witness pressure; breach actionable by cancellation application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38769 of 2025

Anil Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.		....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Noor Muhammad, Srivastava	Yogesh	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 64

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 BNS, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 29.05.2025 at 20:00 hours. The first information report was lodged on 30.05.2025 at 14:11 hours. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with three named accused is alleged to have assaulted five persons. The husband of the informant namely Arvind later on succumbed to the injuries. The injuries received by other persons were found simple in nature. As per the postmortem report, the deceased Arvind received three injuries, one injury was found on the head region and other injuries were on non vital parts of the body. It is contended that the author of the injury caused on the head of the deceased is not known at this stage. Vague and general allegations have been levelled. The applicant is in jail since 04.06.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

BAIL No. 38769 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the first information report, the applicant along with three named accused is alleged to have assaulted five persons. The husband of the informant namely Arvind later on succumbed to the injuries. The injuries received by other persons were found simple in nature. As per the postmortem report the deceased Arvind received three injuries, one injury was found on the head region and other injuries were on non vital parts of the body. The author of the single injury caused on the head of the deceased is not known at this stage. Vague and general allegations have been levelled. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Anil Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶16