Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard Shri Ishan Garg, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Omanand, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 26.07.2025, the uncle of the complainant was sleeping in his old house. At about 10:00 p.m., the applicant along with other co-accused persons came there and assaulted him with lathis and dandas. It is further alleged that the accused persons also assaulted other persons present at the spot, as a result of which Ranjeet Singh sustained an injury on his head. After assaulting them, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the statements of the injured persons, namely Suneel Singh and Ranjeet Singh, the specific role of causing injury to Ranjeet Singh has been attributed to the co-accused Surendra. The present applicant has been assigned only a general role. It is further submitted that the specific role of causing injury to the injured Suneel Singh has been attributed to the applicant. However, attention of the Court has been invited to the injury report of Suneel Singh, which indicates that he has sustained only simple injuries.

¶13

It has further been submitted that the co-accused Shubham Singh, who was assigned a similar role, has already been granted bail vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8891 of 2025. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in the matter. The

¶14

BAIL No. 1283 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

applicant is in judicial custody since 29.07.2025 and has no criminal antecedents.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

Considering the statements of the injured witnesses, the role attributed to the present applicant in their statements, the bail granted to co-accused Shubham Singh on similar footing, and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 29.07.2025 without any criminal antecedents, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Virendra Singh , involved in Case Crime No. 247/2025, U/S-191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 117(2), 324(4), 109(1) of B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Bikapur, District- Ayodhya, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶23

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶25

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶26

March 13, 2026/R.C.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Himanshu Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Vikash Singhal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Others

Govind Gupta @ Vishal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Satish Rajendra Saroj vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Idrish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.