Allowed

Shivam and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025BAIL/41540/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honble Santosh Rai, J. granted bail to accused-applicants Shivam and Yaduraj in a case under Sections 115(2), 352, and 324(4) of BNS. The court considered submissions regarding false implication and lack of grievous injury, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each with specific undertakings to appear and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41540 of 2025

Shivam And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rajesh Dwivedi, Rakesh Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Kailash Nath, G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manoj Yadav, holding brief of Sri Kailash Nath, learned counselfor the informant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicants Shivam and Yaduraj seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.298 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 324(4), 109 B.N.S., Police Station Didarganj, District Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused-applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and have been falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute between the parties. Applicants are languishing in jail since 26.10.2025. It is submitted that three accused persons including the applicant are named in the FIR which has been registered with the allegation that applicants alongwith co-accused person have caused injury on head of informant with iron shovel but no specific and separate role of applicants regarding causing injury to the informant has been assigned in the statement of injured. It is argued that as per the medical report available on record seven injuries have been sustained by the injured but neither any grievous injury was sustained on the vital part of the injured not any fracture etc was sustained by the injured. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents to their credit. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶10

BAIL No. 41540 of 2025

¶11

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶17

(iv) The applicants shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.

¶18

(v) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them strictly, in accordance with law.

¶19