Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12085 of 2026

Sarvesh Kumar

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Krishna Dutt Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 01 of 2026, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) and 118 (2) B.N.S., P. S. Sahayal, District-Auraiya, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

In the F. I. R., which was lodged by the father of the injured, namely, Roop Singh alias Avneesh, allegations of physical assault have been levelled against the applicant and two other co-accused, namely Ramlakhan and Pradeep Kumar. The applicant Sarvesh Kumar and coaccused, namely Ramlakhan and Pradeep Kumar have been assigned the role of causing injuries to the injured with axe, brickbats and iron rod, respectively.

¶10

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 incident is alleged to have taken place on 1.1.2026 at about 16.00 hrs., whereas the F. I. R. of the same was lodged on the next day, i. e. 2.1.2026 at about 00.59 hrs., though the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is only five kms. and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the first information report, which suggests that the F. I. R. was lodged after due deliberation and as an afterthought. He next submitted

¶11

BAIL No. 12085 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

that in the F. I. R. place of incident has not been mentioned, which creates doubt about the truthfulness of the incident. No motive has been assigned. Criminal history of one case has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 13.3.2026, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused caused grevious injuries to the injured, which could have proved fatal to their lives, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. According to the radiologist Dr. Ratnakar, X-ray report shows fracture of nasal bone , which in his opinion is found to be grevious in nature. In the CT-Scan report "displaced fracture is noted at both nasal bones with soft tissue swelling around ."

¶15

Having 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 himself and witnesses, namely Shobhit Yadav, Ravindra and Umesh Chandra have specifically stated that the applicant along with other co-accused assaulted the injured with axe, brickbats and iron rod and the fact that in the opinion of the doctor, the injuries are grevious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, Sarvesh Kumar is rejected.

¶17

April 23, 2026

¶18

HR

¶19

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶20

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

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Husain Vs State of U.P.

Bhola and Another Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Vs State of Up

Faisal vs State of U.P.

Tavish Raza Vs State of U.P.