Ayodhya Singh @ Kaksh Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P.

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15823 of 2026
Ayodhya Singh @ Kaksh Bahadur Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Nirmal Kumar Singh, Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned
AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime no.372 of 2025, under Sections 109(1),
115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Revti, District Ballia.
3. Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, Learned Senior Advocate contends that the
applicant has been assigned a general role in the FIR. The applicant is
said to have been armed with a Tangi. He contends that the Tangi is a
sharp-edged axe like weapon and the injured has not received any incised
wound. He further contends that in the X-ray report, the fracture of the
9th rib was found and the said injury is not dangerous to life. The
applicant is said to have been in jail since 16.12.2025. The applicant has a
criminal history of 11 cases and he has been convicted in one case and has
been awarded five year's imprisonment. He is on bail in the said case.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
the earlier conviction of the applicant was recorded for an offence under
Section 307 IPC. The present case also is a case for an offence under
Section 307 IPC (Section 109 BNS). He has two other cases under
Section 307 IPC to his credit. The applicant is a repeat offender and may

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
2
not be considered for grant of bail as he is likely to repeat the offence in
the near future.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.
6. The applicant is named in the FIR and has been assigned the role of
assaulting the injured with a 'Tangi'. Tangi is stated to be a sharp-edged
weapon like an axe. The injured has received two lacerated wounds, one
just above the eyebrow on the left side of the forehead and the other
behind the left ear near the mastoid process. The other injuries found on
the person of the injured were all abrasions and complaint of pain. The X-
ray report notes a fracture on the 9th rib. Later, it appears that a medical
board had been constituted, which also found fracture in the 8th and 10th
ribs also. The injuries sustained by the injured were not found to be
dangerous to life.
7. Coming to the objection with respect to the criminal antecedents of the
applicant, the applicant is said to be a previous convict for an offence
under Section 307 IPC and has been awarded five years’ imprisonment.
He is stated to be on bail under the orders of this Court. The order of this
Court has been annexed as Annexure No.19 to the affidavit, and the
details regarding the conviction have been mentioned in paragraph no.33.
8. The prohibition for grant of bail, as provided under Section 480 of the
BNSS (earlier Section 437 Cr.P.C.), is for the Courts other than the High
Court or the Court of Session. Section 480 of the BNSS reads as under:-
“ 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence.-
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable
offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station
or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he
may be released on bail, but-
(i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds
for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life;

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
3
(ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable
offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he
had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable
offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than
seven years:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or
clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is a child or is a woman or is
sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in
clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to
do for any other special reason:
Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required
for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody
beyond the first fifteen days shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to
grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an
undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by
the Court:
Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been
committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court
under this sub-section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
Public Prosecutor.
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial,
as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused
has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further
inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 492 and
pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on
the execution by him of a bond for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI,
Chapter VII or Chapter XVII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or abetment of, or

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
4
conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section
(1), the Court shall impose the conditions,-
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed under this Chapter;
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected; and
(c) that such person 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,
and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers
necessary.
(4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and
commit him to custody.
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable
offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking
evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said
period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be
recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.
(7) If, at any time, after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable
offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the
accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond for his appearance to hear
judgment delivered.”
9. This Court, while considering the grant of bail under Section 483 of the
BNSS, shall, apart from taking into consideration the other factors like the

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
5
gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the material collected
in support thereof, also consider the criminal antecedents of an accused.
10. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and
Another (2020) 11 SCC 648 , while considering the challenge to an order
granting bail to an accused having several cases against him, has held as
under:-
"On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to
the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been no wrong or improper
exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused. The
factors outlined in the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 for testing the
legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials
available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from
non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie
view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and
there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves
cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its
discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant
materials. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would
establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of
the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed."
11. Thus, while considering bail of the accused, the same cannot be
refused solely on the ground of the applicant having a number of criminal
cases to his credit. However, the conviction and the bar to grant of bail
under Section 480(1)(i) and (ii) BNSS is not one to be taken lightly.
Normally, while considering the bail application of an applicant, the
Court must bear in mind any previous conviction.
12. The conviction recorded against an applicant, which has yet to be set
aside by the appellate court, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, does
come in the way of an applicant to be considered for grant of bail.
However, as per the argument of the Learned AGA, the provisions of
Section 480(1)(i) and (ii), if considered in their right perspective, would
mean that a person would become disentitled to be considered for bail if
he is convicted for an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
6
life or imprisonment for seven years or previously on two or more
occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three
years or more but less than seven years.
13. Section 307 IPC, which is equivalent to Section 109(1) of the BNS,
provides for different punishments for the same offence. Section 307 IPC
reads as follows:-
“ Section 307. Attempt to murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be
liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.— When any person offending under this section is under
sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.”
14. Section 109 BNS reads as follows:-
“ Section 109.-
(1) Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be
liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
(2) When any person offending under sub-section (1) is under sentence of imprisonment for
life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which
shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life.”
15. The language used in Section 480(1)(i) and (ii) use the word
“punishable”. The Full Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with
its interpretation while considering the application of the proviso to
Section 389 Cr.P.C. in the case of Arimardan v. State of U.P., 2007 SCC
OnLine All 1200 and has opined as under:-
“12. Here in the proviso there is a slight ambiguity in the language employed in it, which

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
7
has also given rise to the disputed question of construction as regards the applicability of
the expression punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
not less than ten years whether one is charged or actually sentenced to that period. We
consider that it would be conducive to clarify as well as to the avoidance of unnecessary
technical objections giving occasion for litigation.

13. The entire submission on the part of learned Advocate General with regard to the
applicability of the proviso rest on the meaning of the word "convicted of an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than
10 years". Actual awarding of sentence is not relevant for the attraction of proviso to
Section 389. Reliance is placed on the expression punishable defined by the Apex Court in
the case of Sube Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : [(1989) 1 SCC 235] : AIR
1988 SC 2235) wherein it is said to mean:
"The word 'punishable' is ordinarily defined as deserving of or capable or
liable to punishment, punishable within statute providing that Defendant
may have ten (sic) peremptory challenges if offences charged is punishable
with death or by life imprisonment; means deserving of or liable to
punishment; capable of being punished by law or right, may be punished,
or liable to be punished, and not must be punished.
We find ourselves unable to accept the argument in view of
the clear language of the proviso to Sub-section (1). To say
that the proviso refers only to the offence(s) for which death
sentence or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than 10 years is provided in the penal
statute and its applicability has nothing to do with the
sentence virtually awarded, would make the proviso
practically futile and un-meaningful. It was also observed
by the Apex Court in the case of P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By
L.Rs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd., 2004 SCW 5934: ((2004) 11 SCC
672 : AIR 2004 SC 5152) that in the guise of purposive
construction one cannot interpret a Section in a manner
which wound lead to a conflict between the Sections of the
same Section. If all the categories of offences wherein lesser
punishment is also provided and awarded are taken within
its sweep, it would be contrary to the legislative spirit.

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
8
Where the Legislature intended to provide opportunity of
giving show-cause in writing it meant that the heinous
offences should not go unresponded. While keeping the third
category of offences wherein imprisonment for not less 10
years is provided would itself show that its applicability
would not be widened for the offences wherein the sentence
less than 10 years is awarded. Here the proviso relating to
the offence punishable with imprisonment for life would be
strictly construed keeping in view the minimum sentence so
provided in the proviso. It cannot take within its purview the
offences where the lesser imprisonment is awarded. In this
context, the expression "not less than" would mean
imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover
only those offences for which punishment could be
imprisonment for a clear period of 10 years or more.”
16. In view of the determination of the Full Bench of this Court, in the
opinion of this Court, the word “punishable” in Section 480(1)(i) and (ii)
would necessarily be interpreted in the light of the actual sentence
awarded. So far as the offences which provide for imprisonment for life
or death, there is no ambiguity. The offence under Section 307 IPC (now
Section 109(1) BNS), although provides for a maximum of life
imprisonment, also provides for imprisonment which may extend up to 10
years. As held by this Court in the case of Arimardan (supra), in the
opinion of this Court the word 'punishable' must be given the same
interpretation and the actual sentence awarded shall be taken into account,
when considering previous conviction.
17. The applicant has a previous conviction of one case and five years’
imprisonment has been awarded to him. The prohibition under Section
480(1)(ii), in the opinion of the Court, would not apply. Even otherwise,
conviction of a person would not automatically make him disentitled to be
granted bail, as no such prohibition exists under Section 483 of the BNSS.
18. This Court, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4137 of 2024,
while considering the effect of Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., considered a
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Saquib Abdul Hamid

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
9
Nachan v. The State of Maharashtra passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.716 of 2014 and quoted with approval paragraphs 22 and
23 of the said judgment. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the above-mentioned
case are being reproduced hereunder:-
“"22. Mr. Jha submitted that the applicant cannot be released on bail n view of the fact
that the applicant is a previous convict having undergone a sentence of imprisonment for a
period of 10 years on the charge of an offence punishable under section 3(3) of the TADA
Act.
23. I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter, and I have heard the learned
counsel for the applicant in this regard. Indeed, section 437 of the Code treats a person
who has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, Imprisonment for
Life or Imprisonment for 7 years or more, differently from others, and provides that such
person shall not be released on bail. However, the prohibition in that regard is not
absolute, and the second proviso to sub-section(1) of section 437 of the Code retains the
power of the court to direct such a person to be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is
just and proper, so to do for any special reason. In my opinion, that there is no prima-
facie case, would by itself be a special and sufficient reason for releasing an accused to
has been previously convicted, on bail. Any other interpretation would mean that a
previous convict of a category mentioned in section 437 of the Code can be booked for any
and every offence, and would have to remain in custody till the conclusion of the trial
irrespective of whether or not, there is substance in the accusation. In the instant case,
coupled with the weakness on a number of aspect of the prosecution case, as observed in
my order granting bail to the co-accused Shamil Nachan and Akif Nachan, the applicant
has managed to bring out further weakness in the prosecution case on the basis of
information procured by him under the Right to Information Act. It is not as if for
releasing the applicant on bail, a positive finding that he is not guilty of the alleged
offences, is required to be raised or recorded. What would be required is satisfaction
about existence of 'reasonable grounds' for believing him to be not guilty. The phrase
'reasonable grounds' imports lesser degree of satisfaction than 'sufficient grounds'. It is
not that it is only if there would be no case for proceeding against an accused, that he can
be released on bail. This has been specifically made clear by Their Lordships of the
Supreme Court of India of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. (supra). ”
19. While relying upon the above-mentioned decision, this Court then

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
10
proceeded to opine as follows:
“Thus from the above judgements it is amply evident that the applicability of Section 437
(i) and (ii) cannot be applied by shutting eyes or in a mechanical fashion. The individual's
role who s seeking bail also occupies significance and it carries weight. The court's have
to critically assess one's role, and his satisfaction about existence of 'reasonable ground'
for beleaving that his name might have be dragged with ulterior motive, thus believing
hum that he is nor guilty fro the offence charged for. The phrase 'reasonable grounds'
imports lesser degree of satisfaction than 'sufficient ground'.
If the aforesaid provision of Cr.P.C. is applied mechanically, it may lead to gross injustice
and disastrous result and even a previous convict, who has done nothing or falsely
implicated in the alleged offence, cannot come out on bail till conclusion of trial. This is
not the intention of legislation. As mentioned above, in the instant case that there is family
rift between father and his two sons with regard to selling of a property belonging to them.
Specific case, that Zaid Khan has given deadly blow on the deceased and the role
attributed to present applicant Muslim, that he caught hold the deceased ? a passive role
role attributed to the applicant. Thus, keeping in view the role attributed to the applicant,
he deserves to be bailed out."
20. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the previous conviction on the facts
of the present case would, firstly, not disentitle the applicant to seek bail,
as only one conviction has been shown against the applicant in which five
years’ imprisonment has been awarded to him; and secondly, this Court,
in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of Section 483 BNSS (Section
439 Cr.P.C.), can consider and grant bail even in cases where there is a
bar under Section 480(1)(i) and (ii) having regard to all other facts and
circumstances, including relevant considerations with respect to exercise
of jurisdiction to grant bail, of which criminal history and previous
conviction also is an integral part.
21. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it
appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.
22. The bail application is allowed .
23. Let the accused-applicant, Ayodhya Singh @ Kaksh Bahadur Singh

BAIL No. 15823 of 2026
11
, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on
his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses
and co-operate in the trial.
(iv) The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by
the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the court
concerned.
24. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court
concerned will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
25. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded 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.
26. 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.
27. The observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the
instant bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on
the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
May 11, 2026
A. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad