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

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 34 of 2025, under sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 103 (1), 351 (3), 61 (2) of BNS (old Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506, 120-B I.P.C.), Police Station Chandapur, District- Raebareli is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 06.07.2025, under sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 103 (1), 351 (3), 61 (2) of BNS (old Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506, 120-B I.P.C. against eight named accused persons and eight to ten unknown persons including applicant alleging therein that on 06.07.2025 in Lami Chauraha at around 2 PM, the named accused persons alongwith 8 to 10 unknown persons had attacked the informant due to some land dispute going on between the parties in which the informant was injured. The bua of the informant was killed at the spot and rest of the relatives got injuries.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that PW-1 in his statement has assigned the role of catching and holding to the applicant whereas other prosecution witnesses have assigned general role to the applicant.

¶16

It is further submitted that story in the FIR as well as in the statement that the father of the informant, his uncle-Surendra Kumar, Bua-Sushila Devi, Ramu and informant himself caused injury on their head and hands but there is no medical examination of these persons was ever held. This fact may be verified from the statement of Ramu, who has stated that they have taken some medicine and not got their medical examination done so this wrong information made in the FIR and the statement show that story made in the FIR is a cock and bull story.

¶17

It is further submitted that during trial, the statement of prosecution

¶18

BAIL No. 1509 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 have been recorded and PW-1 in his statement has made a role of catching and holding to the applicant Sanjeev Kumar Singh and role of hitting is assigned to co-accused person namely Shailendra and cause of death as per post mortem report is one head injury.

¶21

It is further submitted that the PW-2, 4 and 5 in their statement has also assigned general role to all the accused persons including the present applicant.

¶22

It is further submitted that PW-1, who is the informant in his chief has made a statement that somebody had written FIR, which was signed by him and given it to the Police Station and during the cross examination, he has stated that the Police got the FIR written by someone and taken his signature meaning thereby the names were given by someone and not by injured eyewitness.

¶23

It is further submitted that as per prosecution case, there are 16 to 18 persons, who had attacked whereas there is only four injuries on the body of deceased.

¶24

It is further submitted that applicant has a criminal history of four cases, out of which in one case, he has been acquitted and in rest of the cases, he has been enlarged on bail. The details thereof is being given hereinbelow:-

¶25

i) Case Crime No. 534 of 2013, under Section 147, 148, 323, 504 IPC at Police Station Maharajganj, District Raibareli in which applicant has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.03.2015.

¶26

ii) Case Crime No. 245 of 2014, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Raibareli in which applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 24.03.2017.

¶27

iii) Case Crime No. 388 of 2018, under Section 148, 149, 323, 504 and 427 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Raibareli in which applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 05.05.2022.

¶28

iv) Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, under Section 323, 504, 352, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Raibareli in which applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.03.2024.

¶29

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the basis of counter affidavit but unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶30

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties and going through the record of the case, prima-facie, it appears that there is general allegation of assault or attack by all the accused persons even in the statement of PW 1, as disccused above, only role of catching hold has been assigned to applicant and specific role of hitting the deceased is assigned to co-accused Shailendra; it also appears from going through the cross-examination of PW-1-the informant that he had not written the FIR and it appears that name of accused persons were given by someone else and not by alleged injured witness and he has only signed the same, thus, primafacie, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶32

BAIL No. 1509 of 2026

¶33

3

¶34

Let the applicant Ranvijay Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶36

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶37

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶38

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶39

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶40

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶41

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶42

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶43

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶44

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶45

April 28, 2026 Nitesh

¶46

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶47

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranvijay Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Sushil Kumar Yadav @ Sushil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Madan Lal vs Ranvir Prasad Addl. Chief Secy. Consumer Protection Weight Measurement Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Bhudev Singh vs Shri Amit Agrawal (Ias) and 2 others

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

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another