Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 862 of 2026

Rahul Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Awasthi, Azmi Yousuf Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Tauseef Ali Ansari, Vikas Chauhan

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Vikas Chauhan, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶10

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the real brother of the complainant, namely Virendra Kumar, was assaulted by the named accused persons, including the present applicant, by means of lathi, danda, kicks and fists. It is further alleged that the injured was threatened with dire consequences, including threat to life. After receiving initial medical treatment at the Community Health Centre (CHC), he was referred to the District Hospital, Shahjahanpur for further management.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the injured Virendra Kumar, wherein the specific role of causing injuries by lathi and danda has been attributed to co-accused Sanjeev and Phoolchand. It is submitted that no specific overt act of causing injury has been assigned to the present applicant.

¶12

It has further been submitted that in the initial medical examination conducted at CHC, Dr. Kuldeep Verma opined that the injured had sustained simple injuries. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in judicial custody since 23.07.2025.

¶13

BAIL No. 862 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail submitting that although the injuries were initially opined to be simple, subsequent medical examination revealed that the injured had sustained a fracture of the right temporal bone as well as a fracture in the elbow.

¶17

Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, particularly the absence of any specific role of causing injury attributed to the applicant; the distinguishable role assigned to co-accused Sanjeev and Phoolchand who have been attributed specific overt acts; the nature of injuries sustained by the injured; and further considering that the applicant is in custody since 23.07.2025 and has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Rahul Kumar , involved in Case Crime No. 204/2025, U/s109(1)/115(2), 3(5), 351(3) & 352 Β.N.S (307/323/34/506/504 I.P.C.), P.S.Pasgawan, District- Kheri, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶22

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶23

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶24

February 19, 2026/R.C.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

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

Jagdish Prasad Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Ninama vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Sheru Singh @ Somendra Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Sinha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 6 Others

Raj Singh Constable (G.D.) Batch No. 098012443 vs UOI Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others