Dismissed¶20

Karan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026BAIL/9846/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karan Singh v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9846 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Harvir Singh J., decided April 23, 2026 - bail rejected; BNS 2023 Ss.109, 126(2), 351(3); Case Crime No. 220 of 2025, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri; fracture in parietal bone of injured Nemat; criminal history of 23 cases; prior conviction in Case Crime No.180/12 IPC; suppression of material fact; parity with co-accused Bablu Alias Ravikant and Anil Yadav; custody since 6.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court recorded as evident that a fracture in the parietal bone of the injured Nemat was found and that the applicant has a criminal history of 23 cases. ¶17

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether accused-applicant Karan Singh is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 220 of 2025 under Sections 109, 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.

¶11

Court's answer

The Court recorded as evident that a fracture in the parietal bone of the injured Nemat was found and that the applicant has a criminal history of 23 cases.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's prior conviction in Case Crime No.180/12 was not fully explained and disclosed in a correct perspective, amounting to suppression of material fact.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court observed that criminal history is not a ground to deny bail.obiter¶17
Having regard to the evidence available on record, the gravity of the offence, the injuries caused to the injured and the suppression of material fact, the Court found no good ground to release the applicant on bail and rejected the bail application.ratio¶20
The observations made by the Court are only for the purpose of disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of the Court on the merits of the case.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Harvir Singh, J.) rejected the bail application of Karan Singh in Case Crime No. 220 of 2025 under Sections 109, 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri. The applicant, in custody since 6.10.2025 with a stated criminal history of 23 cases, sought parity with co-accused Bablu Alias Ravikant and Anil Yadav who had been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches. The Court noted the fracture in the parietal bone of injured Nemat, and that the applicant, a convict in Case Crime No.180/12 (ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC), had failed to disclose the conviction correctly, amounting to suppression of material fact. Holding that there was no good ground for release, the Court rejected bail and clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9846 of 2026

Karan Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajit Kumar Mishra, Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar, G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 70

¶9

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶10

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

¶11

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant/ Karan Singh, for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 220 of 2025, under Sections 109, 126(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that, the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that, general allegations of physical assault have been levelled by the complainant/ informant of this case against the applicant. It has further been alleged that, the applicant along with other co-accused persons has assaulted the injured persons, namely, Dharamveer (informant) and Nemat (brother of the informant), who sustained grievous injuries. The injured persons were assaulted by Anuruddh Yadav s/o Agyaram, Vineet Yadav, Shivam Yadav and Shubham Yadav, sons of Karan Singh, Anil Yadav s/o Premchandra Singh, Karan Singh s/o Jayveer Singh, Sandeep Yadav s/o Akhairam Singh and Babloo Yadav s/o Maan Singh. However, prime role has been attributed to Amit Kumar causing injuries with the help of Sariya and Vineet Yadav, causing injuries with the help of country made pistol to the brother of the informant, namely, Nemat. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, the first information report was lodged on 24.5.2025 and as per the medical reports of injured persons, all injuries were reported to be simple in nature except injury No.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, the charge sheet in the said case was filed on 17.6.2025 and thereafter,

¶13

BAIL No. 9846 of 2026

¶14

¶15

the matter was re-investigated by the order of the Circle Officer and Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was added on 24.9.2025 by supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this matter, since 6.10.2025, criminal history of 23 cases has been explained 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. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that co-accused persons, namely Bablu Alias Ravikant and Anil Yadav have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 6.1.2026 and 11.2.2026, respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.45665 of 2025 and 4046 of 2026 and the main role has been attributed to Amit Kumar and Vineet Yadav, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

On the other hand, Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State submits that, the accused- applicant is a habitual offender and as much as having a criminal history of 23 cases. The applicant failed to explain the details of all the 23 cases, however the accused applicant has given a false statement in para 28 of the bail application, as much as the applicant has been convicted in Case Crime No.180/12, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, as the accused- applicant suppressed the fact of conviction and has simply stated that, the applicant is on bail, which is ambiguous, suspicious and unclear. The applicant, in all fairness, ought to show his bonafide, would have shown the correct fact that, the applicant has been convicted in aforesaid Case Crime No.180/12 and thereafter, his sentence has been suspended and he has been granted bail. Thus, the accused- applicant failed to disclose the correct facts and has not shown any bonafide. Learned AGA further submits that, there is a likelihood that, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he is likely to commit such acts and may indulge into similar criminal activities, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned AGA further submits that, as per medical report of injured Nemat, lacerated wound of size 5cm x 1cm on the middle of scalp is found, which is skin deep and bleeding is also present and injury was kept under observation and as per supplementary report, fracture in parietal bone of the injured Nemat is seen, therefore, having regard to the manner, in which the crime has been committed, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail..

¶17

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that, fracture in parietal bone of the injured Nemat was found and applicant has criminal history of 23 cases. Though, the criminal history is not a ground to deny the bail, but the fact

¶18

BAIL No. 9846 of 2026

¶19

¶20

remains that, applicant is a convict in Case Crime No.180/12, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, which is not fully explained and disclosed by the accused- applicant in a correct perspective and there is suppression of material fact. Thus, having regard to the evidence available on record against the applicant and considering the gravity of offence, injuries caused to the injured and suppression of material fact, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the bail application moved on behalf of applicant - Karan Singh is hereby rejected.

¶21

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶22

April 23, 2026 Gurpreet Singh

¶23

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh 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

Pradeep @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Husain Vs State of U.P.

Bhola and Another Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Vs State of Up

Faisal vs State of U.P.

Tavish Raza Vs State of U.P.