Dismissed¶17

Virji @ Vijander v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2026BAIL/6973/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; Section 307 IPC; attempt to murder; grievous injuries; suspected firearm injuries to injured Kishor; parity with acquitted co-accused rejected; charge not framed; deliberate delay in trial; misuse of process of law; no criminal antecedents; custody since 19.01.2026; Case Crime No. 349 of 2009; P.S. Farah, District Mathura; Allahabad High Court; Harvir Singh, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6973 of 2026; decided April 20, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the rival contentions, the fact that the injured sustained grievous injuries, and that the accused-applicant deliberately refrained from framing of the charge and misused the process of law, the Court held that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. ¶16

Virji @ Vijander vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6973 of 2026

¶2

Virji @ Vijander .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 70

¶4

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant/ Virji @ Vijander for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 349 of 2009, under Section 307 of I.P.C, Police Station Farah, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that, the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution. It has further been submitted that other co-accused persons, who were allegedly involved with the applicant had been acquitted by the trial court. It has also been submitted that the case of the applicant stands on better footing than that of other co-accused, who have been acquitted by the trial court. The accused-applicant has been languishing in jail in this matter since 19.01.2026 having no criminal antecedents to his discredit and there is no likelihood that the accused-applicant, after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the

¶9

BAIL No. 6973 of 2026

¶10

¶11

applicant on the ground that, the charge in this case has not yet been framed and the injuries received by the injured Kishor are as, " 1. Lacerated wound of 1.5 cm x .1 cm not fracture muscular 5 cm away from mouth Pc Gun powder out side face neck injury inverted advised x-ray suspected would of entry.

¶12

2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm x not proved spupoc circular bone inverted no tissue piece bleeding present advised x-ray neck plus CT Scan suspected would of cavity.

¶13

3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm not proved on side back of chest medical border of scapula advised x-ray of chest.

¶14

4. Haemotoma of 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm LT side shoulder neck advise x-ray Opinion injury are KUO fresh suspected caused by fire arm."

¶15

It has further been submitted by learned A.G.A. that the applicant-accused is refraining himself from framing of charges. So far as other co-accused persons are concerned, who have been acquitted, cannot be a ground that there is any probability of acquittal of the applicantaccused also. It will depend upon the nature of evidence, adduced during the course of trial. However, the applicant- accused herein deliberately delayed the process of trial, therefore, no leniency can be given to the applicant.

¶16

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the fact that, the injured has sustained grievous injuries.The accused applicant has deliberately refrained from framing of the charge and misused the process of law. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that applicant has not made out a case for bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicantaccused Virji @ Vijander is hereby rejected.

¶18

April 20, 2026 Gss

¶19

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virji @ Vijander v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virji @ Vijander 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

Vipin vs State of U.P.

Saurabh @ Pinnak vs State of U.P.

Ramsurat Ram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Prasad vs State of U.P.

Mrs. Maya and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P.