Allahabad High Court
AVIRAJ SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
In the absence of any corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence and given his clean record, the Court held that he is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aviraj Sharma in a case (Crime No. 285 of 2025) involving alleged offences under several IPC sections. The applicant argued that he was never named in the FIR, had no direct or indirect involvement with the firms or co‑accused, and possessed no criminal history. The State opposed bail but could not produce evidence linking the applicant to the alleged crimes. The Court noted that a similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted bail and that there was no corroborative evidence against Sharma, nor any risk of tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or causing delay in the trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- no FIR naming
- presumption of innocence
- evidence
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11148 of 2026
Aviraj Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Tiwari, Gyanendra Prasad
Mahant, Jitendra Singh, Purnendu
Pratap, Rahul Kumar, Rahul Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. Pandey, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2025, under Sections 3(5),
318(4), 111, 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Kandhrapur,
District- Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. The applicant has no concern with the
firms styled as M/s Vidhya Traders, M/s Abhiraj Treding, M/s Muni Gee
Transport Company and M/s Maa Ambey Scrap Mart. The name of the
applicant was neither disclosed by the drivers of the two vehicles namely,
Vijay Kumar and Vedveer, who were arrested at the spot nor the CDR of the
mobile phone of the applicant shows that he was not in contact with the
aforesaid drivers. It is next contended that there is no direct, indirect
involvement or participation of the applicant in the alleged offence. The
name of the applicant surfaced during the course of the investigation. The
applicant has neither forged any document nor indulged in evasion of GST.
It is submitted that the bank accounts linked with the four firms do not
belong to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Bhagwan Singh @
Bhora Pradhan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21800 of 2026 (Bhagwan
Singh @ Bhora Pradhan vs. State of U.P.). The applicant is in jail since
BAIL No. 11148 of 2026
2
18.2.2026. Further, as per the averments made in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of
the 2nd supplementary affidavit the applicant has no criminal history. In
case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of
investigation. Identically placed co-accused Bhagwan Singh @ Bhora
Pradhan has been granted bail by this Court. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the alleged offence.
Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained
confined for almost seven months and there is no hope of early conclusion
of trial, more so when 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,
without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Aviraj Sharma involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
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.
September 17, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…