Dismissed¶31

Bhola and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2026BAIL/10564/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10564 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Harvir Singh, J.; Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117(2) B.N.S.; case crime no. 405 of 2025; P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh; applicants Bhola and Neelu; injured Manoj; complainant Virendra Singh; assault with lathi and danda; head injury and arm fracture; CT scan fractures; treating doctor's statement; suppression of criminal history via supplementary affidavit; in jail since 2.10.2025; bail during trial refused.

What did the court decide?

The nature of the injuries sustained by the injured and the statement of the doctor who had examined the injured weighed against grant of bail. ¶30

Bhola and Another Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10564 of 2026

Bhola And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Keshari Nandan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 70

¶10

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in case crime no. 405 of 2025, under Sections 109 (1), 115 (2) and 117 (2) B.N.S., P. S. Gandhi Park, District-Aligarh, are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

In the F. I. R., which was lodged by the complainant, namely, Virendra Singh, who is brother of the injured, allegations of physical assault upon injured Manoj, with baton (lathi and danda), causing serious injuries in his head and fracture in arm, have been levelled against the applicants and 2-3 other unknown persons . F. I. R. further narrates that resultantly the injured was admitted to hospital.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive, though they are not even remotely concerned with the incident. He has further submitted that truth is that there is a matrimonial dispute between the injured and his wife and the present incident is an offshoot of that dispute and got caused in collusion with his wife. There is no independent witness of the recovery of baton, which is alleged to be used in the incident in question. He lastly submitted that the applicants, who have no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 2.10.2025, are entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicants along with other co-accused, are accused of having

¶16

BAIL No. 10564 of 2026

¶17

¶18

assaulted the injured with lathi and danda, causing him head injury and fracture in his arm, therefore, is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The details of the injuries are at page no 35 of the bail application, which reads as under:-

¶19

"Bony window: Shows fractured bony framework of right maxillary sinus with hemopneumosinus shows miniically displaced farcture of posterior wall of right frontal sinus with hemopneumosinus shows comminuted fracture of bilateral nasal bones and nasal septum Shopws segmental miniamily displaced farcture of right zygomatic arch

¶20

Shows multifragmentary fracture of lateral wall of right orbit and linear undisplaced farcture of roof of right orbit with pneumo orbit. Shows heterogenity and air foci in right preseptal space in subcutaneous plane.

¶21

IMPRESSION: CT image morphology is suggestive of:

¶22

Normal brain parenchyma and fractured bone window as described."

¶23

Learned AGA has further submitted that though the applicants in para 5 of the affidavit, accompanying the bail application have averred that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, whereas supplementary affidavit, detailing criminal history of the applicant, has subsequently been filed, which amounts to suppression of material fact.

¶24

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured as well as all other witnesses have specifically assigned the role of causing injuries to the injured on his head and fracture in his arm, to the applicants and the statement of the doctor, who had examined the injuries of the injured. The statement of the doctor is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶25

Description (िववरण) "महोदय इसके बाद उपचार करने वाले िचिकत्सक हक्टर शोएब, डयटर िनिखल, डक्टर अहमद के कथन अंिकत करने हेतु संपकर् करने का प्रयास िकया गया तो अपने चेंबर में मौजूद िमले अनुमित प्राप्त कर बयान अंिकत िकए जाते हैं।

¶26

बुद्यान िचिकत्सक. डक्टर शोएब िचिकत्सा अिधकारी जे.एन.एम.सी., A.M.U. अलीगढ़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़ ने मूछताछ पर बताया िक मेरी देखरेख में मेरे तथा मेरे सहयोगी िचिकत्सकों द्वारा पीिड़त मनोज

¶27

BAIL No. 10564 of 2026

¶28

¶29

कुमार का उपचार िकया गया जो िक िदनांक 29.9.25 को जे.एन.एम.सी. में इमरजेंसी में भतीर् कराया गया था उस समय मनोज कुमार की िस्थित काफी बखराब थी सर में काफी गहरा घाव था तथा हाथ में भी फैक्चर था इस सम्बन्ध में सारा िववरण हम लोगों के द्वारा मेिडकल प्रपत्रों में अंिकत कर िदया गया है माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा तलब िकए जाने पर िवस्तार पूवर्क अवगत कराया जाएगा बस यही कहना है।"

¶30

Keeping in view the nature of the injures sustained by the injured and the statement of the doctor, who had examined the injured and that the applicants have suppressed fact of criminal history, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, this bail application moved on behalf of applicants Bhola and Neelu is rejected.

¶32

April 22, 2026 HR

¶33

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhola and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virji @ Vijander vs State of U.P.

Munnalal vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Parvez vs State of U.P.

Raja Garg Alias Pankaj Garg Vs State of U.P.

Madhav Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.