# Krishna @ Kishna v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 471
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33908 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kishna-v-state-of-u-p-52870
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

medical evidence on record including the
apparent discrepancy between the CT scan and
X-ray reports, the stage of the investigation
culminating in filing of the charge-sheet, the
antecedents of the applicant, and the settled
principles governing grant of bail, the applicant
was entitled to be enlarged on bail during the
pendency of the trial, or whether his continued
judicial custody was necessary in the interests
of justice.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 110,
115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2) - The facts of
the case are that the applicant, Krishna @
Kishna, was implicated in Case Crime No.
278 of 2025, registered at Police Station
Shikohabad, District Firozabad, u/s 110,
115(2),
118(1),
352
and
351(2)
of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in relation to an
incident in which the injured Sunny
sustained multiple injuries including a
grievous injury on the skull - During
investigation,
medical
examination
initially indicated absence of bony injury
on X-ray, whereas a CT scan conducted
earlier revealed a comminuted depressed
fracture of the frontal sinus, giving rise to
serious
discrepancies
in
the
medical
record - The applicant was arrested and
remained in judicial custody, whereupon
he moved the instant bail application
seeking release during the pendency of
trial, owing to apparent inconsistencies
between the CT scan and X-ray reports
and the manner of investigation, the High
Court summoned the Investigating Officer
and the treating doctor, directed enquiries
by the Senior Superintendent of Police and
the Chief Medical Officer, and examined
the conduct of the investigation and
preparation of medical reports - After
perusal of the enquiry reports, noting that
the charge-sheet had been filed, the
applicant had no criminal antecedents,
and no specific role was attributed to him
in causing the grievous injury, the Court
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeded to consider the bail application
on merits.

Held: In pursuance of order dated 30.10.2025,
a report has been submitted by Chief Medical
Officer, Firozabad, mentioning therein that the
X-ray of the injured was conducted on
31.5.2025, though the CT Scan had been
conducted on 3.5.2025 and because of passage
of time, there are chances that the blood may
have deposited on the fractured part and for
that reason the X-ray could not show the
fracture
and
there
appears
to
be
no
interpolation in the X-ray report - However,
from the perusal of record, it was found that
discharge summary of injured Sunny shows that
he was admitted in the government hospital on
3.5.2025 and got discharged on 7.5.2025 - The
discharge slip, which was signed by Dr. Vipin,
shows that as per the CT Scan report, there was
comminuted depressed fracture post wall of
both frontal sinus and it is also clear from the
report that it was Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri
who himself e

## Text

11 All. Krishna @ Kishna Vs. State of U.P.
471
aforesaid witnesses were closed.
Similarly PW-3 Viresh Kumar appeared in
the trial court on 19.01.2011 and his
examination-in- chief was recorded and the
court waited till 3:50 p.m. but counsel for
the applicant did not appear . It appears that
the applicant's counsel was not willing and
ready to cross examine these witnesses and
after a period of more than 14 years, he
moved a misconceived application on
26.8.2025 which was rightly rejected by the
learned trial court vide order dated
23.9.2025.

21. From the aforesaid discussion
calling of the witnesses at this stage does
not appear to be essential for a just decision
of the case. The application has been
moved apparently to cause delay in
conclusion of the trial and it has rightly
been rejected by the trial court. 22. As there
is no illegality in the order of the trial court,
the application under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S. lacks merit and the same is hereby
rejected.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 471
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33908 of
2025

Krishna @ Kishna ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether, having regard to the
nature and gravity of the allegations, the
medical evidence on record including the
apparent discrepancy between the CT scan and
X-ray reports, the stage of the investigation
culminating in filing of the charge-sheet, the
antecedents of the applicant, and the settled
principles governing grant of bail, the applicant
was entitled to be enlarged on bail during the
pendency of the trial, or whether his continued
judicial custody was necessary in the interests
of justice.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 110,
115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2) - The facts of
the case are that the applicant, Krishna @
Kishna, was implicated in Case Crime No.
278 of 2025, registered at Police Station
Shikohabad, District Firozabad, u/s 110,
115(2),
118(1),
352
and
351(2)
of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in relation to an
incident in which the injured Sunny
sustained multiple injuries including a
grievous injury on the skull - During
investigation,
medical
examination
initially indicated absence of bony injury
on X-ray, whereas a CT scan conducted
earlier revealed a comminuted depressed
fracture of the frontal sinus, giving rise to
serious
discrepancies
in
the
medical
record - The applicant was arrested and
remained in judicial custody, whereupon
he moved the instant bail application
seeking release during the pendency of
trial, owing to apparent inconsistencies
between the CT scan and X-ray reports
and the manner of investigation, the High
Court summoned the Investigating Officer
and the treating doctor, directed enquiries
by the Senior Superintendent of Police and
the Chief Medical Officer, and examined
the conduct of the investigation and
preparation of medical reports - After
perusal of the enquiry reports, noting that
the charge-sheet had been filed, the
applicant had no criminal antecedents,
and no specific role was attributed to him
in causing the grievous injury, the Court
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeded to consider the bail application
on merits.

Held: In pursuance of order dated 30.10.2025,
a report has been submitted by Chief Medical
Officer, Firozabad, mentioning therein that the
X-ray of the injured was conducted on
31.5.2025, though the CT Scan had been
conducted on 3.5.2025 and because of passage
of time, there are chances that the blood may
have deposited on the fractured part and for
that reason the X-ray could not show the
fracture
and
there
appears
to
be
no
interpolation in the X-ray report - However,
from the perusal of record, it was found that
discharge summary of injured Sunny shows that
he was admitted in the government hospital on
3.5.2025 and got discharged on 7.5.2025 - The
discharge slip, which was signed by Dr. Vipin,
shows that as per the CT Scan report, there was
comminuted depressed fracture post wall of
both frontal sinus and it is also clear from the
report that it was Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri
who himself examined the injured on 2.5.2025
and advised him CT Scan and X-ray of injuries
of injured Sunny - It is surprising that if the
physician Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri himself
advised the injured for CT Scan and X-ray and
discharge slip itself having the mention of result
of CT Scan, then how the CT Scan report was
not taken into consideration by him while
preparing the medical report on the basis of Xray report, conducted on 31.5.2025 - Therefore,
prima facie, there is a serious negligence on the
part of Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri - From
perusal of record, it was clear that if Dr.
Ashwani Kumar Pachauri refused to prepare the
supplementary report on the basis of available
medical report which also included discharge
summary dated 7.5.2025, then the I.O. should
have informed his higher officers or approached
the C.M.O - However, surprisingly, instead of
informing this fact to his higher officers or
C.M.O., the concerned I.O. hurriedly submitted
the charge sheet u/s 308 I.P.C. only, on the
basis of incorrect X-ray report which was in
contradiction to the earlier CT Scan report -
Allegations against the applicant and co-accused
are general in nature, asserting that they beat
and caused injuries to victim - Even if we accept
the CT scan report, it indicates that there is only
one injury classified as grievous, and no specific
role has been attributed to applicant in causing
that injury - Thus, bail application allowed.
[Paras 4, 5, 6, 14, 15] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC
773; Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC
51; Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 - referred to
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu
Writ
Petition
(Crl.)
No.4
of
2021
,reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 - followed
on

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Bail application; Medical examination; Injured;
X-ray; CT scan; Grievous injury; Comminuted
depressed fracture; Case diary; Investigating
Officer; Charge-sheet; Negligence; Enquiry;
Chief Medical Officer; Senior Superintendent of
Police; Judicial custody; Custodial interrogation;
Stage of investigation; Entitled to be enlarged
on bail; Bail application allowed; Personal bond;
Sureties; Conditions of bail; Tampering with
evidence; Cooperate in trial; Cancellation of bail;
Verification
of
sureties;
Release
order;
Compliance and directions to authorities.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. - 33908 of 2025

From the Judgment passed in Case Crime No.
278 of 2025, u/ss. 110, 115(2), 118(1), 352,
351(2) BNS, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Applicant:
Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kr. Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.P.S.
11 All. Krishna @ Kishna Vs. State of U.P.
473
Chauhan, learned A.G.A. and perused the
record.

2. The instant bail application has
been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of
2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1),
352, 351(2) BNS, P.S. Shikohabad, District
Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.

3. This matter was heard on
13.10.2025 and again on 30.10.2025. In
compliance of the order dated 13.10.2025
I.O of this case Mr. Faisal Khan (S.I.) and
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri are present.
On 13.10.2025 the following order was
passed:-

 "1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for
the State.

 2. This matter was heard on
07.10.2025 and the court has passed the
following order:

 "1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kr.
Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for
the State.

 2. The instant application has
been filed to enlarge the applicant on bail
in case crime no. 278 of 2025, under
Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2)
BNS, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

 3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant submits that general allegation has
been made against the applicant and other
co-accused and as per the doctor, no bony
injury was found on the skull of injured
Sunny. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the applicant has relied upon
statement of Dr. Ashwani Kr. Pachauri,
Physician, Raj Narayan Maheshwari Sanyukt
Chikitsalaya, Shikohabad, who has stated
that
he
had
conducted
the
medical
examination of the injured Sunny on 2.5.2025
which was followed by X-ray of his injuries
and no bony injury was found on the skull of
the injured. However, CT Scan of the injured
(Annexure No.4) dated 3.5.2025 shows that
there is comminuted depressed fracture of
anterior and posterior wall of both frontal
sinus with hemosinus.

 4. This Court, just to take
medical opinion, regarding the medical
report, summoned Dr. P.C. Dubey and Dr.
U.B.
Singh
from
the
High
Court
Dispensary who advised that comminuted
depressed fracture can easily be detected
in an X-ray which is serious in nature and
they also pointed out that the statement of
Dr. Ashwani Kr. Pachauri needs to be
verified with the original X-ray plate by
which the skull injury of the injured Sunny
was conducted.

 5. In such view of the matter, this
Court directs the Investigating Officer of this
case as well as Dr. Ashwani Kr. Pachauri to
appear before this Court along with the
original X-ray plate of the skull injury of the
injured
Sunny
before
this
Court
on
13.10.2025 at 10:00 AM.

 6. S.S.P., Firozabad as well as
C.M.O., Firozabad are directed to ensure
presence of the concerned I.O. and Dr.
Ashwani Kr. Pachori, respectively, before
this Court on the next date of listing.

 7. Put up this case on 13.10.2025
as fresh.

 8. Registrar (Compliance) is
directed
to
communicate
this
order
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
forthwith to the S.S.P., Firozabad as well
as C.M.O., Firozabad for compliance."

 3. In compliance of the above
order, Investigating Officer of this case,
Faisal Khan, Sub-Inspector posted at
Police Station-Shikohabad as well as Dr.
Ashwani
Kumar
Pachauri,
Physician
posted
at
Raj
Narayan
Maheshwari
Sanyukt Chikitsalaya, Shikohabad, are
present.

 4. On making enquiry, Dr. Ashwani
Kumar Pachauri opined that if comminuted
depressed fracture is detected in CT scan on
03.05.2025, the same can also be corrected
through X-ray on 31.05.2025 because healing
of fracture in skull takes time and same is also
the opinion of Dr. U.B. Singh posted in High
Court Dispensary, who has also been requested
to assist the court. It is surprising that the victim
himself in his statement dated 19.05.2025
clearly stated that in CT scan, a fracture in skull
has been detected and the CT scan itself was
conducted on 03.05.2025. The report thereof
was also made part of the case diary in parcha
no.3 on 05.05.2025. Subsequently, the X-ray of
the skull of the injured was conducted on
31.05.2025 despite the fact that Dr. Ashwani
Kumar Pachauri in his opinion dated
02.05.2025 advised X-ray for the skull injury of
the injured and even more surprising is the fact
that X-ray was conducted on 31.05.2025 which
shows no fracture in skull of the injured, which
is absolutely improbable and appears to be
manipulated, may be on the part of the
concerned radiologist and the Investigating
Officer, also appears to be negligent. This court
takes into account that once the Investigating
Officer found that comminuted depressed skull
fracture had already been detected on
03.05.2025 and same is a part of case diary,
how he got conducted the X-ray of the injured
on 31.05.2025 and on the basis of opinion of
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri, who relied upon
the disputed X-ray that no fracture is detected
in the skull, submitted chargesheet u/s 308 IPC.
Though, prima facie, in such cases, chargesheet
should have been filed u/s 307 IPC as the injury
itself is grievous in nature and on the vital part.
Apart from this injury there are four other
injuries on the person ofinjured. Therefore, to
verify the aforesaid fact, it would be
appropriate to conduct enquiry.

 5. In view of the above, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Firozabad is
directed to conduct an enquiry against Faisal
Khan, Sub-Inspector and ascertain whether he
was negligent in conducting the investigation,
taking into account the aforesaid fact.

 6. C.M.O., Firozabad is also
directed to conduct an enquiry in this matter
taking help of senior radiologist including any
other physician or surgeon and submit his
report on the point whether the X-ray
conducted on 31.05.2025 is manipulated, just
to show that no fracture is found in the skull of
injured despite the fact same is detected in CT
scan.

 7. The aforesaid exercise shall be
concluded by the S.S.P., Firozabad as well
as C.M.O., Firozabad, as the result of this
enquiry will have effect on this bail.
Therefore, this court is not inclined to
release the applicant on bail today.
However, instead of rejecting the bail, I
deem it appropriate to consider it on the
next date after perusal of the aforesaid
enquiry.

 8. Put up as fresh on 30.10.2025
at 10:00 am.

 9. Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to send a copy of this order to
S.S.P., Firozabad as well as C.M.O.,
Firozabad.
11 All. Krishna @ Kishna Vs. State of U.P.
475
 10. On the next date of listing,
Investigating Officer, Faisal Khan as well
as
Dr.
Ashwani
Kumar
Pachauri,
Physician, will again appear before this
court. "

4. In pursuance of order dated
30.10.2025, a report has been submitted by
the Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad,
mentioning therein that the X-ray of the
injured was conducted on 31.5.2025,
though the CT Scan had been conducted on
3.5.2025 and because of passage of time,
there are chances that the blood may have
deposited on the fractured part and for that
reason the X-ray could not show the
fracture and there appears to be no
interpolation in the X-ray report. However,
from the perusal of the record, this Court
found that discharge summary of the
injured Sunny shows that he was admitted
in the government hospital on 3.5.2025 and
got discharged on 7.5.2025. The discharge
slip, which was signed by Dr. Vipin, shows
that as per the CT Scan report, there was
comminuted depressed fracture post wall of
both frontal sinus and it is also clear from
the aforesaid report that it was Dr. Ashwani
Kumar Pachauri who himself examined the
injured on 2.5.2025 and advised him CT
Scan as well as X-ray of the injuries of the
injured Sunny.

5. It is surprising that if the
physician Dr. Ashwani Kumar Pachauri
himself advised the injured for CT Scan
and X-ray and the discharge slip itself
having the mention of the result of CT
Scan, then how the CT Scan report was not
taken into consideration by him while
preparing the medical report on the basis of
X-ray report, conducted on 31.5.2025.
Therefore, prima facie, there is a serious
negligence on the part of Dr. Ashwani
Kumar Pachauri. However, as Dr. Ashwani
Kumar
Pachauri
has
already
retired,
therefore, this Court resists itself from
passing any adverse order against him, but
a cost of Rs.10,000/ is imposed which shall
be deposited by Dr. Ashwani Kumar
Pachauri in the District Legal Service
Authority, Firozabad within a period of 15
days from today.

6. From perusal of the record, one
more fact has come into picture that if Dr.
Ashwani Kumar Pachauri refused to
prepare the supplementary report on the
basis of available medical report which also
included
discharge
summary
dated
7.5.2025, then the I.O. should have
informed his higher officers or approached
the C.M.O. However, surprisingly, instead
of informing this fact to his higher officers
or the C.M.O., the concerned I.O. hurriedly
submitted the charge sheet under Section
308 I.P.C. only, on the basis of incorrect Xray report which was in contradiction to the
earlier CT Scan report.

7. Though, prima facie, the I.O.
Mr. Faisal Khan (S.I.) is negligent, but this
Court resists itself from passing any
adverse order against him. However, this
Court directs the Superintendent of Police,
Firozabad
to
conduct
an
enquiry
whetherthere is negligence on the part of
Sub-Inspector Mr. Faisal Khan and take
appropriate action.

8. This Court believes that in the
administration of criminal justice, police
officers and all public servants, including
doctors, must perform their duties fairly.
Any negligence or unfairness by a public
servant involved in the criminal justice
system can undermine public trust in the
State, ultimately defeating the important
objectives of the Constitution of India. It is
the responsibility of higher officials in
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
every government department to eliminate
inefficiencies from the system in order to
maintain integrity and fairness, particularly
in the criminal justice system.

9. The Supreme Court, in the case
of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another,
(2021) 10 SCC 773, has stated that in cases
where the maximum punishment is up to
seven years, courts should generally grant
bail, with certain exceptions. However, the
Court has encountered numerous instances
where police authorities, in an attempt to
misuse this directive, have intentionally
manipulated the injury reports and other
evidence gathered during investigations.
They file charge sheets under Section 308
of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section
307, which results in a lesser charge
punishable by up to seven years. In such
scenarios, the role of the concerned
Magistrate at the district court becomes
crucial.

10. It is relevant to mention that
district courts and advocates some times
misinterpret the judgement of Apex Court
in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central
Bureau of Investigation and another,
(2021) 10 SCC 773.

11. The Apex Court in Satender
Kumar Antil (supra) (2021) issued
direction to district courts to decide the bail
application of the accused after filing of
final police report (charge sheet), regarding
all four categories of cases, including cases
punishable up to 7 years and not for the bail
applications
during
investigation.
Paragraph No.3 of Satender Kumar Antil
vs Central Bureau of Investigation and
another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 is being
quoted as under:-

 "3. We are inclined to accept
the guidelines and make them a part of
the order of the Court for the benefit of
the courts below. The guidelines are as
under:

 "Categories/Types of Offences

 (A) Offences punishable with
imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling
in Categories B and D.

 (B) Offences punishable with
death,
imprisonment
for
life,
or
imprisonment for more than 7 years.

 (C) Offences punishable under
Special
Acts
containing
stringent
provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37),
PMLA (Section 45), UAPA [Section 43D(5)], Companies Act [Section 212(6)],
etc.

 (D)
Economic
offences
not
covered by Special Acts.

 Requisite Conditions

 (1)
Not
arrested
during
investigation.

 (2) Cooperated throughout in the
investigation including appearing before
investigating officer whenever called.

 (No need to forward such an
accused along with the charge-sheet
Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v.
State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676] )

 Category A

 After
filing
of
chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance
11 All. Krishna @ Kishna Vs. State of U.P.
477
 (a) Ordinary summons at the 1st
instance/including permitting appearance
through lawyer.

 (b) If such an accused does not
appear despite service of summons, then
bailable warrant for physical appearance
may be issued.

 (c) NBW on failure to appear
despite issuance of bailable warrant.

 (d) NBW may be cancelled or
converted into a bailable warrant/summons
without insisting physical appearance of
the accused, if such an application is
moved on behalf of the accused before
execution of the NBW on an undertaking of
the accused to appear physically on the
next date/s of hearing.

 (e) Bail applications of such
accused on appearance may be decided
without the accused being taken in physical
custody or by granting interim bail till the
bail application is decided.

 Category B/D

 On appearance of the accused in
court pursuant to process issued bail
application to be decided on merits.

 Category C

 Same as Categories B and D with
the additional condition of compliance of
the provisions of bail under NDPS (Section
37), Section 45 of the PMLA, Section
212(6) of the Companies Act, Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, Pocso, etc.?"

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court
further stated that the guidelines for
considering bail do not apply in all cases. A
bail application may be rejected if the
accused has not cooperated during the
investigation. Additionally, if the court
believes that judicial custody of the
accused is necessary for the completion of
the trial, or if further investigation or
potential recovery is needed, the bail may
also
be
denied.
Paragraph
No.5
of
Satender
Kumar
Antil
vs
Central
Bureau of Investigation and another,
(2021) 10 SCC 773 is being quoted as
under:-

 "5. The trial courts and the High
Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid
guidelines
while
considering
bail
applications.The caveat which has been put
by the learned ASG is that where the
accused have not cooperated in the
investigation nor appeared before the
investigating
officers,
nor
answered
summons when the court feels that judicial
custody of the accused is necessary for the
completion of the trial, where further
investigation including a possible recovery
is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot
give them benefit, something we agree
with."

13. In the case of Satender Kumar
Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the
Honorable Supreme Court issued directions
for
investigating
authorities
regarding
investigations, particularly for offenses
punishable by up to seven years. The Court
also directed magistrates and concerned
courts to supervise the arrest procedures in
light of the ruling in Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar and another; (2014) 8
SCC 273. They are to issue appropriate
orders, including the release of the accused
if there is a violation of the Supreme
Court's directions as outlined in Arnesh
Kumar (supra). Paragraph No. 100 to
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
100.11 of Satender Kumar Antil vs
Central Bureau of Investigation and
another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 is being
quoted as under:-

 "Summary/Conclusion

 100. In conclusion, we would like
to issue certain directions. These directions
are meant for the investigating agencies
and also for the courts. Accordingly, we
deem it appropriate to issue the following
directions, which may be subject to State
amendments:

 100.1. The Government of India
may consider the introduction of a separate
enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as
tostreamline the grant of bails.

 100.2. The investigating agencies
and their officers are duty-bound to comply
with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A
of the Code and the directions issued by
this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] . Any dereliction
on their part has to be brought to the notice
of the higher authorities by the court
followed by appropriate action.

 100.3. The courts will have to
satisfy themselves on the compliance of
Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code. Any noncompliance would entitle the accused for
grant of bail.

 100.4. All the State Governments
and the Union Territories are directed to
facilitate
Standing
Orders
for
the
procedure to be followed under Section 41
and 41-A of the Code while taking note of
the order of the High Court of Delhi dated
7-2-2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine
Del 13448] and the Standing Order issued
by Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order 109 of
2020, to comply with the mandate of
Section 41-A of the Code.

 100.5. There need not be any
insistence of a bail application while
considering the application under Sections
88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.

 100.6. There needs to be a strict
compliance of the mandate laid down in the
judgment of this Court in Siddharth
[Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC
676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423] .

 100.7. The State and Central
Governments will have to comply with the
directions issued by this Court from time to
time with respect to constitution of special
courts. The High Court in consultation with
the State Governments will have to
undertake an exercise on the need for the
special courts. The vacancies in the
position of Presiding Officers of the special
courts
will
have
to
be
filled
up
expeditiously.

 100.8. The High Courts are
directed to undertake the exercise of
finding out the undertrial prisoners who
are not able to comply with the bail
conditions. After doing so, appropriate
action will have to be taken in light of
Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the
release.

 100.9.
While
insisting
upon
sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the
Code has to be kept in mind.

 100.10. An exercise will have to
be done in a similar manner to comply with
the mandate of Section 436-A of the Code
11 All. Krishna @ Kishna Vs. State of U.P.
479
both at the district judiciary level and the
High Court as earlier directed by this
Court in Bhim Singh [Bhim Singh v. Union
of India, (2015) 13 SCC 605 : (2016) 1
SCC (Cri) 663] , followed by appropriate
orders.

 100.11. Bail applications ought to
be disposed of within a period of two weeks
except if the provisions mandate otherwise,
with the exception being an intervening
application. Applications for anticipatory
bail are expected to be disposed of within a
period of six weeks with the exception of
any intervening application."

14. This Court acknowledges the
efforts of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, the
Incharge Sessions Judge of Firozabad, who,
after carefully examining the available
medical report, had the courage to reject
the bail application of the applicant. This
decision was made despite the fact that the
offense was incorrectly classified
as
punishable by up to seven years. The
concerned judge thoughtfully considered
the evidence in the case diary, including the
CT scan report.

15. The applicant's counsel argues
that the allegations against the applicant and
the co-accused, Aryan, are general in nature,
asserting that they beat and caused injuries to
the victim. Even if we accept the CT scan
report, it indicates that there is only one
injury classified as grievous, and no specific
role has been attributed to the applicant in
causing that injury. Additionally, the counsel
points out that a charge sheet has already
been filed in this case, indicating that
custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The
applicant has no prior criminal record and has
been incarcerated since June 2, 2025. If
granted bail, he assures that he will not
misuse this privilege and will cooperate fully
with the investigation and trial proceedings.

16. On the other hand, learned
A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for
bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid
fact.

17. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the nature of allegation and reports
available on record as well as the fact that
charge sheet has already been filed and the
applicant is a man of clean antecedents, this
court is of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly
bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Krishna @
Kishna, involved in the aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, with the following conditions:-

 i. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

 ii. The applicant shall cooperate
in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.

 iii.
The
applicant
shall
not
indulge
in
any
criminal
activity
or
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

 iv. The applicant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

20. Identity, status and residence
proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the
bonds are accepted.

21. The applicant shall be released
on the basis of downloaded copy of this
order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad and verified by the
concerned counsel with the undertaking
that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.

22. It is further directed that the
trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned
jail
through
Bail
Order
Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.

23. Office is directed to send a
copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or
e-prison portal in compliance of the order
of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021
decided on 31.01.2023; reported in (2024)
10 SCC 685.

24.
Registrar
(Compliance)
is
directed to forthwith communicate this
order to the S.P., Firozabad for compliance
.Additionally , a copy of this order should
also be sent to he Director, J.T.R.I. to
inform judicial officers about the ratio of
Satender Kumar Antil case.

25. Personal appearance of Dr.
Ashwani Kumar Pachauri and I.O. Mr.
Faisal Khan (S.I.) is exempted.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 480
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38294 of
2025

Sohrab @ Sorab Ali ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Satya Priya Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether, having regard to
nature of allegations u/ss. 137(2) and 87 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the material collected
during investigation including the statement of
victim, the filing of charge-sheet, the period of
incarceration, and the principles governing grant
of bail, the applicant had made out a case for
being enlarged on bail during the pendency of
the trial, or whether his continued detention
was warranted in the facts and circumstances of
the case, without adjudicating upon the merits
of the prosecution case.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss.
137(2)
and
87
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 - s. 183 - U.P. Jail
Manual, 2002 - R. 91 - The facts of the
case are that the applicant, Sohrab alias
Sorab Ali, was implicated in crime u/ss.
137(2) and 87 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, on the allegation that he had
enticed away the minor daughter of first
informant, whereupon he was taken into
custody and remained incarcerated since
25.09.2025 - During investigation, the
victim, in her statement stated that she