# Deepak Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 72 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-03-18 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32166 of 2025 - **Bench:** Santosh Rai - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-kumar-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-54288 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2026) 3 ILRA 72 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32166 of 2025 Deepak Kumar Chauhan ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the applicant, implicated in offences under various sections of IPC, was entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, particularly in view of absence of any specific / separate role attributed to him, nature of injuries sustained by injured, pendency of investigation, and the constitutional mandate of personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Headnotes Indian Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 506 and 307 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Right to life and personal liberty - Bail - Grant of - The prosecution case arose out of an FIR alleging that the accused-applicant, along with five co-accused persons, assaulted the injured by using hard and blunt objects as well as a sharp-edged weapon, thereby attracting offences uss. 147, 506 and 307 IPC - The applicant sought enlargement on bail contending that no specific or distinct role had been attributed to him either in FIR or in statement of injured, that only three lacerated injuries were found in medical examination with no abnormality detected in the X-ray report, and that he had been falsely implicated - Opposing the prayer, the State contended that the applicant did not deserve indulgence at the pre-trial stage, however, considering the nature of allegations, absence of a specific role, pendency of investigation and the mandate of Article 21 of Constitution, the High Court proceeded to enlarge the applicant on bail subject to certain conditions. Held: Though accused applicant along with five other accused persons are named but no specific and separate role has been assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in statement of injured, common and general role has been assigned to six accused persons regarding causing injuries by hard and blunt object and sharp edged weapon but only three injuries are noted in medical report, in the X-ray report NAD is noted, as per instructions dated 16.09.2025, investigation is going on - Keeping in view of uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (infra), dictum of Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (infra) & Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Infra) and without expressing any opinion on merits of case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail - Accordingly, bail application allowed. [Paras 6, 7] (E-13) Case Law Cited Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 -relied on List of Acts 3 All. Deepak Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. 73 Indian Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India, 1950 List of Keywords Bail Application; Enlargement on bail; Attempt to murder; Criminal Intimidation; Hard and blunt object; Sharp edged weapon; Lacerated wounds; Medical report; X-Ray report; No specific role; General and common role; False implication; Investigation pending; Article 21 of Constitution of India; Tampering with evidence; Undertaking; Presence before trial court; Misuse of bail liberty; Personal bond; Sureties; Pre-Trial Stage; Conclusion of Trial; Bail application allowed. Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 32166 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoria in Case Crime No.190 of 2024, P.S. Lar, District Deoria. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Applicant(s): Manvendra Narain Pathak, Sanjay Tiwari, Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra Adv. for the Opposite Party(s): G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Santosh Rai, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaudhary, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Deepak Kumar Chauhan seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.190 of 2024, under Sections 147, 506 and 307 I.P.C., P.S. Lar, District Deoria. 3. Tersely, as per allegations contained in the F.I.R., accused applicant and five other accused persons have caused injury to the injured with hard and blunt object and sharp edged weapon (knife). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No specific and separate role has been assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the injured. In the medical report three lacerated wounds were noted, in the X-ray report NAD has been detected. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of three cases which have been explained in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2025. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the facts that though accused applicant along with five other accused persons are named but no specific and separate role has been 74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the injured, common and general role has been assigned to six accused persons regarding causing injuries by hard and blunt object and sharp edged weapon but only three injuries are noted in the medical report, in the X-ray report NAD is noted, as per instructions of learned A.G.A. dated 16.09.2025, investigation is going on and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned. (iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. (v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court. 8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 74 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 848 of 2026 alongwith other cases Angad Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents