Dismissed¶¶21

Sandeep Nagar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2026BAIL/2956/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail rejection; Sandeep Nagar v. State of U.P.; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 2956 of 2026; Case Crime No. 507 of 2025; Sections 109(1), 131, 352, 351(2) B.N.S.; P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad; victim/injured Rahul Tyagi; grievous injuries — fractures of left forearm, supra orbital bone, nasal bone, left 5th Metacarpal; no recovery from applicant; custody since 17.11.2025; no criminal antecedents; Coram: Hon'ble Harvir Singh, J.; decided April 10, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial and accordingly rejected the bail application. ¶¶21

Sandeep Nagar Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2956 of 2026

Sandeep Nagar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Chauhan, Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey, G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 70

¶9

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶12

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 507 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 131, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Loni, District-Ghaziabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

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 general allegation of assaulting the victim has been made against three named and some unknown persons, including applicant. He further submitted that no incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 17.11.2025 and has no criminal antecedents to his discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the F.I.R. itself it is alleged that the applicant-accused has assaulted the victim/injured Rahul Tyagi. He

¶15

BAIL No. 2956 of 2026

¶16

¶17

further submitted that, according to the X-ray report the injured Rahul Tyagi sustained several injuries, which reads as under:-

¶18

"Fracture of left forearm, supra orbital bone of skull and fracture of nasal bone;

¶19

Fracture of left 5th Metacarpal bone."

¶20

Opinion of Doctor : The injury nos. 1,2,3 and 5 are grievous in nature.

¶21

After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial, hence this bail application is rejected.

¶22

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶23

April 10, 2026

¶24

Faridul

¶25

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Nagar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Nagar 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

Praveen Jain Vs State of U.P.

Heeralal @ Vijay @ Bandar vs State of U.P.

Tausif vs State of U.P.

Geeta vs State of U.P.

Nilesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Praveen Jain vs State of U.P.