Ankush Parihar vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12266 of 2026

Ankush Parihar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2026, under Sections 309(6), 318(4), 317(2) B.N.S. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Raksa, District Jhansi during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 10.02.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 23.02.2026. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. The informant and his friend Raja Kushwaha were examined by the doctor for the first time on 17.02.2026. There is no explanation for the delay in examination by the doctor. The injuries sustained by them were simple in nature. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph- 18 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 28.02.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been

¶12

BAIL No. 12266 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

lodged belatedly. The informant and his friend Raja Kushwaha were examined by the doctor for the first time on 17.02.2026. There is no explanation for the delay in examination by the doctor. The injuries sustained by them were simple in nature. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one and half month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Ankush Parihar, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶16