Dismissed¶14

Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of Up

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2026BAIL/11018/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Harvir Singh, J.), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11018 of 2026, Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., decided April 17, 2026: bail application rejected; Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, Sections 109(1), 352, 351(3), P.S. Sen Paschim Para, District South Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar; applicant in custody since 2.1.2026; no cases cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial and accordingly rejected the bail application. ¶14

Sushil Kumar Yadav Vs State of Up — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11018 of 2026

¶3

Sushil Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devendra Singh, G.A., Jitendra Kumar

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(3), P.S. Sen Paschim Para, District South Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that the allegation of physical assault upon the victim has been leveled against the applicant. He further submitted that there was no motive or reason to cause injury to the injured, which is evident from the FIR itself. He also submitted that as per C.T. Scan report, "No obvious calvarial fractures are seen." He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 2.1.2026 and has no criminal antecedents to his discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the F.I.R. itself it is alleged that the applicant-accused has assaulted the victim/injured person, who is aged about thirty years. He further submitted that, according to the statement of doctor "मजरूब के िसर पर

¶11

BAIL No. 11018 of 2026

¶12

¶13

टांके लगे हुए थे एवं प्टी बंधी हुई थी चोट तो गंभीर थी यिद थोड़ा ज्यादा लग जाती तो जान जाने की पूरी संभावना थी। परन्तु भाग्यवश चोट ज्यादा न होने की वजह से मरीज की जान बच गयी। इस ्ऺकार बयान देते हुए बताया गया।" and in view of the above, the accused-applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial, hence this bail application is rejected.

¶15

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶16

April 17, 2026

¶17

Faridul

¶18

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Yadav v. State of Up

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

Laxmi Shankar Upadhyay vs State of U.P.

Nishant vs State of U.P.

Vasu vs State of U.P.

Bajarangi Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Smt Jayanti and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Manish Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another