Hariom vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8385 of 2026

Hariom

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 72

¶6

HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

¶7

Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on the record.

¶8

Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime no.281 of 2025, under Sections 118(2), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant and the coaccused have been assigned a general role of causing knife injuries on the injured. The FIR has been lodged after one day of the occurrence. Although the injured has received seven incision injuries, as per the medical examination report, however, in the X-ray report no obvious traumatic radiological bony abnormality was noted and in the supplementary report prepared by the Medical Officer at CHC Chhaparauly (Baghpat), the nature of injuries was found to be simple. The applicant is in jail since 20.01.2026, having no criminal antecedents.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that specific allegations of assault using a knife have been levelled on the applicant. The chargesheet against the applicant has already been submitted. The knife has also been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant, although may not have criminal antecedents, however, the offence alleged against him is quite grave, which entails

¶12

BAIL No. 8385 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

upto life imprisonment and he may not be considered for grant of bail.

¶15

I have considered the submissions made by Learned counsels for the parties.

¶16

The applicant although named in the FIR, the FIR itself is delayed by one day. The injuries found on the person of the injured has been opined to be simple in nature. The recovery of a knife although has been effected from the pointing out of the applicant, however, the same does not bear any independent witness. The applicant is in jail since 20.01.2026, having no criminal antecedents. A chargesheet has now been submitted and the applicant is no longer required in any custodial interrogation.

¶17

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶18

The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the accused-applicant, Hariom , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court concerned will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶25

It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official

¶26

BAIL No. 8385 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

¶29

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.

¶30

The observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)

¶32

May 7, 2026

¶33

A. Pandey

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harish Kumar and Another vs State of U.P.

Arif @ Ashif and Another vs State of U.P.

Sameer @ Mohammad Faiz vs State of U.P.

Mahiseem vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lavkush Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Manjeet vs State of U.P.