High Court · 2025

2. Heard Mr. Vidhu Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that complainant Kasturilal Gupta got a first information report lodged on 14.12.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 352, 109, 121(2), 132 of B.N.S., 2023, against Sumit Yadav (applicant), Amit Yadav and two unknown persons making allegation inter-allia that on 14.12.2024, he was going in an auto rickshaw along with Jail Warden-Arjun Singh towards railway station for training. Suddenly a car came and stopped in front of the auto rickshaw. Then Sumit Yadav, Amit Yadav and two unknown persons got down from the car and attacked them and started beating, due to which they sustained injuries.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. allegations of scufÒe and assault have been attributed to both the named accused and two unknown persons and it it is alleged that in the said incident complainant and Jail Warden-Arjun Singh received injuries, whereas name of weapon of assault has not been disclosed. During investigation, statements of both the injured persons, namely, Kasturilal Gupta and Arjun Singh were recorded in which both have stated inter alia that applicant Sumit Yadav was armed with country-made pistol, co-accused Amit Yadav was armed with iron rod and two unknown persons were armed with sticks (danda). Since father of the applicant was languishing in District Jail Jhansi and he was transferred from District Jail Jhansi to District Jail Hamirpur, therefore, accused persons were annoyed and due to said reason, they assaulted and caused injuries to the injured persons. On the strength of statements of injured persons and referring their injury reports, it is argued that no firearm injury was found on the body of injured Kasturilal Gupta and Arjun Singh. Hence the allegations, so far as applicant Sumit Yadav is concerned, are not corroborated from the injury/medical reports of the injured persons and the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of named co-accused Amit Yadav and two unknown persons. It is also pointed out that prior to registration of F.I.R. of this case on 14.12.2024, applicant was having criminal history of two cases bearing Case Crime Nos. 358 of 2018, under Sections 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Premnagar, District Jhansi, in which applicant was served a notice under Section 41A of I.P.C. on 23.11.20218 and thereafter he did not receive any summons etc. In another case being Case Crime No. 398 of 2018, under Section 25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Premnagar, District Jhansi, applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 14.11.2018. Much emphasis has been given by contending that after registration of F.I.R. of this case, applicant has been falsely implication in three cases being Case Crime No. 591 of 2024, under Section 109 B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, Case Crime No. 8 of 2025, under Sections 326(e), 329(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Raksha, District Jhansi and Case Crime No. 9 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 308(5), 121(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, in which till date applicant did not apply for bail. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.12.2024 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R by contending that father of the applicant was in District Jail Jhansi but on account of his shifting to District Jail Hamirpur, the applicant, his brother Amit Yadav along with his associates have beaten the complainant and Jail Warden-Arjun Singh.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that both the injured persons, in their statements, have stated that applicant-Sumit Yadav The was arms with country-made pistol. complainant/injured Kasturilal Gupta has received 12 injuries in the nature of contusion and abrasion. Another injured Arjun Singh received one injury in the nature of contusion. No firearm injury has been received by the injured persons, hence case of present applicant stands on different footing to that of other co-accused persons.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Sumit Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

9. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

10. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

11. It is also made clear that benefit/parity of this order shall not be extended to rest of the co-accused persons of this case. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Mr. Vidhu Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that complainant Kasturilal Gupta got a first information report lodged on 14.12.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 352, 109, 121(2), 132 of B.N.S., 2023, against Sumit Yadav (applicant), Amit Yadav and two unknown persons making allegation inter-allia that on 14.12.2024, he was going in an auto rickshaw along with Jail Warden-Arjun Singh towards railway station for training. Suddenly a car came and stopped in front of the auto rickshaw. Then Sumit Yadav, Amit Yadav and two unknown persons got down from the car and attacked them and started beating, due to which they sustained injuries.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R. allegations of scufÒe and assault have been attributed to both the named accused and two unknown persons and it it is alleged that in the said incident complainant and Jail Warden-Arjun Singh received injuries, whereas name of weapon of assault has not been disclosed. During investigation, statements of both the injured persons, namely, Kasturilal Gupta and Arjun Singh were recorded in which both have stated inter alia that applicant Sumit Yadav was armed with country-made pistol, co-accused Amit Yadav was armed with iron rod and two unknown persons were armed with sticks (danda). Since father of the applicant was languishing in District Jail Jhansi and he was transferred from District Jail Jhansi to District Jail Hamirpur, therefore, accused persons were annoyed and due to said reason, they assaulted and caused injuries to the injured persons. On the strength of statements of injured persons and referring their injury reports, it is argued that no firearm injury was found on the body of injured Kasturilal Gupta and Arjun Singh. Hence the allegations, so far as applicant Sumit Yadav is concerned, are not corroborated from the injury/medical reports of the injured persons and the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of named co-accused Amit Yadav and two unknown persons. It is also pointed out that prior to registration of F.I.R. of this case on 14.12.2024, applicant was having criminal history of two cases bearing Case Crime Nos. 358 of 2018, under Sections 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Premnagar, District Jhansi, in which applicant was served a notice under Section 41A of I.P.C. on 23.11.20218 and thereafter he did not receive any summons etc. In another case being Case Crime No. 398 of 2018, under Section 25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Premnagar, District Jhansi, applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 14.11.2018. Much emphasis has been given by contending that after registration of F.I.R. of this case, applicant has been falsely implication in three cases being Case Crime No. 591 of 2024, under Section 109 B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, Case Crime No. 8 of 2025, under Sections 326(e), 329(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Raksha, District Jhansi and Case Crime No. 9 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 308(5), 121(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, in which till date applicant did not apply for bail. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.12.2024 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R by contending that father of the applicant was in District Jail Jhansi but on account of his shifting to District Jail Hamirpur, the applicant, his brother Amit Yadav along with his associates have beaten the complainant and Jail Warden-Arjun Singh.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that both the injured persons, in their statements, have stated that applicant-Sumit Yadav The was arms with country-made pistol. complainant/injured Kasturilal Gupta has received 12 injuries in the nature of contusion and abrasion. Another injured Arjun Singh received one injury in the nature of contusion. No firearm injury has been received by the injured persons, hence case of present applicant stands on different footing to that of other co-accused persons.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Sumit Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

9. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

10. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

11. It is also made clear that benefit/parity of this order shall not be extended to rest of the co-accused persons of this case. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad