Dismissed¶16

Ramchandar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026BAIL/39221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Harvir Singh, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39221 of 2025; Ramchandar And Another v. State of U.P.; bail during trial rejected on ground of nature of injuries; B.N.S. Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 352; case crime no. 206 of 2025; P.S. Uruwa Bazar, District Gorakhpur; injured Pancham; grievous head injuries, hematoma and skull fractures; applicant in jail since 18.9.2025; FIR delay over 14 hours; no recovery; no criminal antecedents; decided April 2, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Having considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured Pancham, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail; the bail application was rejected. ¶16

Ramchandar and Another Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39221 of 2025

¶2

Ramchandar And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alind Kumar, Deepak Verma, Jai Singh, Kiran Rani, Laloo Yadav, Shashi Ranjan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70

¶7

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 206 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S., P.S. Uruwa Bazar, District-Gorakhpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶10

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 the First Information Report was lodged after a delay of more than 14 hours, and therefore, a false story has been concocted to falsely implicate the accused-applicant. He also 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 18.9.2025 and has no criminal antecedents to his discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶11

Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that grievous injuries have been caused to the injured Pancham. The details of the injuries are at page nos. 52, which reads as under:-

¶12

"Brain - hemorrhagic central para clavicle conclusions with hematoma is seen in left fronto parieto temporal lobe region bone marrow multiple

¶13

BAIL No. 39221 of 2025

¶14

¶15

fracture of left frontal parietal and temporal bones are seen with parietal cranio. "

¶16

Having considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured Pancham, this Court is not inclined to enlarged the applicant on bail, accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶17

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶18

April 2, 2026

¶19

Faridul

¶20

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

Ramchandar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandar and Another 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

Similar cases

Nilesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Aggarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Jain vs State of U.P.

Shyamlal Bhuiyan Vs State of U.P.

Happy @ Harpreet vs State of U.P.

Salman vs State of U.P.