Allowed

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2026BAIL/1640/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First bail application under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. The applicant had no criminal history, was in custody since 29.10.2025, and the treating neurosurgeon reported the injured now out of danger. Bail allowed without entering merits, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions against tampering, pressurising witnesses, and requiring appearance before the trial court.

Dharmendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1640 of 2026

Dharmendra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Nisha Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 23

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶11

Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶12

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.0316 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Jahangirabad, District- Barabanki.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that according to x-ray pelvis (AP) report of the victimvisualized bones appear normal. Bilateral femoral bones are normal in outline. Joint spaces are maintained. Bilateral S.I. joints appears grossly normal. Soft tissues appear unremarkable. Impression : No Significant Abnormality Seen. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 29.10.2025. 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. Hence, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶14

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

¶15

On due consideration to the facts that the applicant has no criminal history; he is in jail since 29.10.2025 and on perusal of parcha no.14 of

¶16

BAIL No. 1640 of 2026

¶17

¶18

the case diary, provided by learned A.G.A., it appears that Dr. Ravindra Srivastava, Neurosurgeon/Chief Consultant, Balrampur Hospital had stated that treatment of the injured was done by him on 29.10.2025 to 10.11.2025 and now he is out of danger, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant Dharmendra 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:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

¶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

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶26

March 10, 2026

¶27

Anand/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shafik vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Mohammad Sufiyan ( Sufiyan @ Lucky in Fir) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Jitendra Kumar @ Kamala Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Karori @ Sunil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.