Sohit Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44945 of 2025

¶3

Sohit

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Kumar, Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Krishna Yadav

¶6

Court No. - 72

¶7

HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ram Krishna Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, and perused the record.

¶9

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 514 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S., Police Station- Chandpur, DistrictBijnor, during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further contends that although the applicant is named in the First Information Report (FIR), a general role of assault have been made against him. The injured is said to have received injury on his eye, however, the same is not a grievous injury. No life threatening injuries have been received by the injured. The applicant is in jail since 15.09.2025. Charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and he is no longer required for custodial arrest or interrogation.

¶11

4. The learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and have contended that the injured, in his statement, has specifically given the role of assault to the applicant. The injured has received grievous injuries and his eye-sight is lost. He is presently being treated at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. He also has a criminal history of one other case, which has not been properly explained.

¶12

BAIL No. 44945 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

6. The FIR as well as the statement of the alleged eye witness of the incident have assigned the role of assault to the four named accused persons, out of whom, Sitaram has been given the role of assault by using an iron rod (Saria); Sohit (applicant) has been given the role of assault by using a ‘Tabal’ and Mahesh Singh and Jagesh have been given the role of assaulting using a ‘lathi’. The injured, in his statement recorded by the police, has not assigned the role of assault to any of the other accused and has stated that it was the applicant, who assaulted him using a ‘lathi’. The statement of Dr. Lokesh Kumar, who has prepared the supplementary report, indicates that if proper treatment is given to the applicant, his eye sight would return.

¶16

7. Prima facie, from the perusal of the medical records filed along with the bail application, the supplementary affidavit as well as the short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the informant, no injury, which could be called ‘life threatening’, has been caused to the injured. The applicant is in jail since 15.09.2025 and charge sheet has already been filed.

¶17

8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and the period of detention of the applicant, I deem it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant.

¶18

9. Let the applicant - Sohit , involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶19

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶20

ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶21

iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶22

iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the Court concerned.

¶23

10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Court

¶24

BAIL No. 44945 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his/her bail.

¶27

11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

¶28

12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

¶29

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

¶30

May 6, 2026 Kushal

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sohit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohit v. State of U.P.

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

Haseen Vs State of U.P.

Krish Keerwal @ Chirag Vs State of U.P.

Kaushar Vs State of U.P.

Bittu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Pal vs State of U.P.

Dilshad vs State of U.P.