Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13976 (ALL)

VIKAS SINGH @ PAHALWAN v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/9852/2026 · 2026-10-05

Santosh Rai

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9852 of 2026 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. 2. This first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44490 of 2024 was rejected vide order dated 18.08.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 4. This second bail application has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant, Vikas Singh @ Pahalwan seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504, 506, 326 IPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Gazipur, District- Fatehpur. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the nothing has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant and a false recovery of a country made pistol and one empty cartridge has been shown from the accused applicant. It is further submitted that it is a case of sudden quarrel and the prosecution story is not supported by the medical evidence available on record. He further submits that five prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court and the accused-applicant is in jail since 18.05.2024 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhanraj Singh Yadav, Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vikas Singh @ Pahalwan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) been prayed for. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that accused applicant has criminal history of 11 cases. He further submits that as per the medical report the injured sustained the injury on his eyes which is the vital part of the body and the injured has specifically assigned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., regarding the role and involvement of the accused applicant in committing the offence. 7. In the First Information Report two persons namely, Vikas Singh @ Pahalwan and Bantu Singh Kachwaha are named. P.W.-2 Satyendra Singh who is said to be the injured witness assigned the main role and involvement of the accused-applicant in committing the offence in his statement. Accused applicant fired on the injured with country made pistol (tamancha). The tamancha was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Furthermore, P.W.-5, who is the Investigating Officer, has already been examined before the trial court concerned. The accused- applicant has criminal history of 11 cases including a case related to Gunda Act being Crime No.Nill/2022. The injured sustained grievous injury on the vital part of the body by firearm. Learned AGA further argued that there is permanent privation of eyesight of injured. The medical report noted "gun shot globe rupture with uveal tissue prolapse. Posterior margin of rupture not identified. PL denied. No intra ocular structures were discernible. X-ray s/o retained bullet in orbit. E/O left lower eye lid laceration with crushed necrotic margins. Underlying muscle tear with exposed infraorbital rim." The medical report corroborates the statement of the injured Satyendra Singh recorded before the trial court. 8. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground to grant bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case, at this stage. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial, as per BAIL No. 9852 of 2026 2 law and try to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by fixing short dates without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. October 6, 2026 Ankit. BAIL No. 9852 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad