BAIL/15360/2026 of ARJUN Vs STATE OF U.P.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15360 of 2026
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S.,
Police Station Mahua Kheda, District Aligarh during the pendency of the
trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 11.12.2024. The first information report was lodged on
08.01.2025. The inordinate delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to
the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant along
with two accused and an unknown person is alleged to have assaulted the
son of the informant. The son of the informant succumbed to the injuries on
12.12.2024 during the course of treatment. As per the postmortem report, the
cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for
chemical analysis. As per the FSL report dated 01.02.2025, no poison was
found. It is contended that the postmortem report does not support the
prosecution case. The death of son of the informant cannot be attributed to
the present incident. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2025
having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
Versus
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Niketa Sharma, Rahul Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Arjun
.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the first information report,
the applicant along with two accused and an unknown person is alleged to
have assaulted the son of the informant. As per the postmortem report, the
cause of death could not be ascertained. As per the FSL report dated
01.02.2025, no poison was found. The medical evidence does not support
the prosecution version. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than
four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of
early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought
to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either
tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant- Arjun, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that
he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
May 6, 2026
SKT/-
BAIL No. 15360 of 2026
2
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad