Dismissed¶32

Shadab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2026BAIL/9928/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9928 of 2026; Harvir Singh, J.; decided April 8, 2026; bail during trial rejected; BNS Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 352, 361(3); case crime no. 15 of 2026; P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur; applicant Shadab; co-accused Sartaj, Farruq, Samedin; injured Junaid, Tazgar, Mursalin; grievous head injury; S.D.H. right parietal lobe and fracture; independent witnesses Shakeel and Aamir; lathi and danda; sharp edged weapon; delay in FIR; custody since 11.2.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court accepted that the independent witnesses Shakeel and Aamir specifically stated that the applicant along with the other co-accused assaulted Junaid and Murslin on the head with lathi and danda, and that Tazgar was assaulted with a sharp edged weapon on his head, which could have proved fatal to his life.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Shadab, involved in case crime no. 15 of 2026 under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 352, 361(3) B.N.S., P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶14

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Considering the rival contentions, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and attending facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, and the bail application of Shadab was rejected.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — The Allahabad High Court (Harvir Singh, J.) rejected the bail application of Shadab, involved in case crime no. 15 of 2026 under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 352, 361(3) B.N.S., P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur, arising out of an alleged assault on Junaid, Tazgar/Tazkar and Murslin/Mursalin with lathi and danda. The Court relied on the specific statements of independent witnesses Shakeel and Aamir that the applicant along with the co-accused (Sartaj, Farruq and Samedin) assaulted the injured on the head, and that Tazgar was assaulted with a sharp edged weapon on his head, which could have proved fatal; the medical reports recorded subdural haematoma (S.D.H.) and fracture of the right parietal bone, rendering Tazgar's injury grievous, while the other reported injuries were simple. Having considered the nature of the offence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, and notwithstanding the defence pleas of delay in lodging the FIR (incident 21.1.2026, FIR 22.1.2026), false implication and absence of independent witnesses, the Court declined bail; the applicant was in custody since 11.2.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9928 of 2026

Shadab

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shailendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Ravi Shekhar Sharma

¶9

Court No. - 70

¶10

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 15 of 2026, under Sections 109, 118 (1), 115 (2), 352, 361 (3) B.N.S., P. S. Hafizpur, District-Hapur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶13

As per the F. I. R. allegations, which was lodged by the brother of the injured, the prosecution case is that the applicant along with three co-accused, namely Sartaj, Farruq and Samedin, assaulted his brother Junaid, his cousin Tazkar and Murslin with baton (lathi and danda), resultantly, Junaid, Tazkar and Murslin sustained injuries in their head.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 21.1.2026 at about 19.30 hrs., whereas the F. I. R. of the same was lodged on the next day, i. e. 22.1.2026 at about 15.57 hrs. and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the first information report, which suggests that the F. I. R. was lodged after due deliberation and as an afterthought. He next submitted that though the incident is alleged to have taken place at the public place in a densely populated area but the prosecution could not produce any independent witness. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 11.2.2026 and has no criminal antecedents, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused caused grevious injuries to the injured in their head, which could have proved fatal to their lives, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The details of the injuries caused to injured Tazgar, Mursalin and Junaid are as under:-

¶16

BAIL No. 9928 of 2026

¶17

¶18

"MLPC No. E/267/26 Date 27.1.26 Examined Tazgar S/o Akil aged about 28 yr/M R/o Vill- Ghunrala Ps Hafizpur Hapur on dated 21.1.26 at 10.25 PM B/B-H.G. 875 Rajpal Singh Ps Hafizpur Hapur. Advice X-Ray Head & CT Scan Head.

¶19

CT Scan done on dated 23.1.26 orbit diagnostic center radiologist Dr. Deepak Tomer report shows. Component of S.D.H. is noted involving the right parietal labe measuring appoximally 2 m.m. in width fracture is noted involving the right parielal labe of Head. Opinion- As per radiologist Dr. Deepak Tomer report shows component of S.D.H. involving the right parietal lobe and fracture involving the Rt parietal bone of head so injury No. (1) grievous in nature.

¶20

MLPC No. E/265/26 Date-27.1.26 Examined Mursalin S/o Rahil aged about 25 Yr/M R/o Ghungrala P/s Hafizpur Dist Hapur on dated 21/1/26 at 10.15 PM in D.C.H. Hapur

¶21

B/B-HG 875 Rajpal Singh Ps. Hafizpur Hapur. Advice X-Ray Rt Shoulder AP View injury No. (4)/Lat view X-Ray Rt Knee- AP view/Lat view- injury No. (6) X-ray done on dated 23.1.2026 orbit diagnosis center Meerut Reporting Dr. Deepak Tomer Consultant radiologist report show. X-Ray Rt Shoulder- No significant abnormalities seen. X-Ray Rt Leg with Knee- Show no significant abnormality. Opinion- As per radiologist reports shows no injury seen in bony region so injury No. (4) & (6) both are simple in nature.

¶22

MLPC No. E/266/26

¶23

Examined Junaid S/o Habil aged about 18 Yr/MR/o Ghungral P/s Halizpur Distt. Hapur on dated 21.1.26 at 10.20 PM in D.C.H. Hapur B/B H.G. 875 Rajpal Singh P/s Hafizpur Hapur. Advice X-Ray Head AP view/Lat view Injury No. (1) X-Ray Rt Shoulder AP view/Lat view injury No. (3) X-Ray Rt Knee- AP view/Lat view- injury no. (4) X-Ray Nose- AP view/Lat view injury no. (2) C.T. Scan Head report shows normal.

¶24

BAIL No. 9928 of 2026

¶25

¶26

X-Ra Head report not present

¶27

X-ray Rt shoulder report not present. X-Ray Rt Knee report not present.

¶28

X-Ray nose AP view shows no significant abnormality radiologist advice X-Ray Nose lateral view

¶29

X-Ray nose lateral view report not present.

¶30

Opinion-As per radiologist Deepak Tomer radiologist orbit diagnostic center shows no bony injury seen so all injury simple in nature."

¶31

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the independent witnesses, namely Shakeel and Aamir have specifically stated that the applicant along with other co-accused assaulted Junaid and Murslin in his head with lathi and danda, further specifying that Tazgar was assaulted with any sharp edged weapon in his head, which could have proved fatal to his life, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶32

Accordingly, the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, Shadab is rejected.

¶33

April 8, 2026 HR

¶34

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab 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

Similar cases

Sunil Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Prajapati vs Narcotics Control Bureau and Another

Malti Devi vs State of U.P.

Raj Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Dubey @ Abhay vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others