Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41602 of 2025

Abhishek Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amit Kumar, Saurabh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Abhishek Singh seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.585 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 324(4), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 8.9.2025. It is submitted that four accused persons alongwith 3-4 unknown persons including the applicant are named in the FIR and name of applicant was surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of CCTV footage but neither any independent and reliable witness was present at the time of incident nor any specific and separate role of applicant regarding causing injuries to the injured persons has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of injured persons. It is further submitted that the injured persons, namely Karan Rajput and Manish Rajput have stated in their statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that some boys have caused injuries to them while two boys have caused injury to injured Manish Rajput with a piece of brick on his head but both the injured have not identified the role and involvement of applicant. It is argued that though the injured Karan

¶11

BAIL No. 41602 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

Rajput had sustained grievous injury of fractures noted bilateral nasal bones, anterior and posterior walls of right maxillary sinus, medial wall of left orbit and inferior wall of right orbit but no specific and separate role of applicant regarding causing injuries to the injured has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of injured person or any witnesses. It is further argued that the applicant side has also sustained several injuries in the present incident and a cross case bearing misc. case no.5037 of 2025 (Jay Singh Vs. Karan Rajput & Ors.) has also been registered against the informant side through application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. by the order of concerned Magistrate on 1.12.2025. It is next argued that co-accused Ashish Singh having similar role has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42709 of 2025 and parity is sought in the matter. It is also argued that applicant has criminal history of two cases which have been explained in para 3, 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 16.11.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the

¶16

BAIL No. 41602 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

following conditions that:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) 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.

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) The applicant 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 him.

¶23

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶25

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

December 16, 2025 RA

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishek Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Nida vs State of U.P.

Vakil Kumar Bind and Another vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja Singh vs State of U.P.

Manish Agrahari (Gupta) vs State of U.P.