UDIT SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14397 of 2025

Udit Sharma
                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                                 Versus

State of U.P.
                                                           .....Opposite
                                                                 Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Neeja Srivastava, Saurabh Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Kumar Saroj, G.A., Nagendra
                                Bahadur Singh, Raj Ashwani

Court No. - 66
           HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms
Pallavi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra
Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri
Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State 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.334 of 2022, under sections
302, 120-B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station Badlapur,
District Jaunpur, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the
prosecution story, FIR was lodged by the real brother of the
deceased, Sarvesh with the allegation that three persons have
attacked upon his brother and two persons have also done recce
prior to the incident on 12.12.2022. Subsequently, in his statement,
first informant Sarvesh had stated that he had received the
information from one Sunil Yadav about the incident in question and
out of the six named persons, he has made allegation only against
one person and also introduced the name of one Vishal Sharma and
present applicant and two other persons, namely Golu Shukla and
Kaju Dubey. It is further submitted that as per the postmortem report,
eight firearm injuries were found on the body of the deceased and
police also recovered pistol from the co-accused, Bunty and one
                                                    BAIL No. 14397 of 2025
                             2


country-made pistol of 0.315 bore from the present applicant. During
investigation, the statement of the persons who have allegedly seen
the incident, namely, Sunil Yadav was not recorded while the
statement of one Sanjay Kumar was recorded on 19.12.2022 and
statement of another eyewitness, Shashi Shukla recorded on
18.01.2023 as well as one Ramesh, who was running the tea stall on
29.12.2022. However, during trial, the eyewitnesses, Sanjay Kumar
and Ramesh did not support the prosecution story. The eyewitness
Sanjay Kumar was declared hostile but the eyewitness Ramesh was
not declared hostile despite not supporting the prosecution story.
During the trial, the first informant claimed himself as an eyewitness
of the incident and was examined as PW-1 and Shashi Shukla who
was examined as PW-4 also supported the prosecution story.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the FIR
as well as statement of the first informant (PW-1), it is clear that he
was not the eyewitness and even PW-4 admitted this fact that he had
not seen PW-1 (first informant) at the time of the incident. Similarly,
PW-1 (first informant) admitted this fact that he had not seen PW-4 at
the time of incident. Therefore, neither PW-1 nor PW-4 were the
eyewitnesses, they were procured by the prosecution. It is further
submitted that even the statement of PW-4, Shashi Shukla was
recorded on 18.01.2023 which is after more than one month without
any explanation which itself casts doubt over the prosecution story
regarding the presence of the PW-4 at the place of incident.

5. Therefore, as on date, there is no material against the applicant. It
is further submitted that applicant has explained the criminal history
of seven cases. It is further submitted that the bail application of the
co-accused Vikas Sharma in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.19405 of 2023 was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court
on 24.04.2024. On that date, the prosecution witnesses were not
examined before the trial court, therefore the statement of PW-2 and
PW-3 were not in existence, who did not support the prosecution
story. Therefore, rejection of bail application of Vikas Sharma will not
affect the present bail application of the applicant, in view of the
                                                      BAIL No. 14397 of 2025
                              3


subsequent statement of witnesses before the trial court, therefore,
applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 16.12.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will
not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that though PW-2 and PW-3 became hostile but PW-4, Shashi
Shukla supported the prosecution story, similarly, PW-1 also
supported the prosecution story but could not justify the fact that why
PW-1 did not claim to be eyewitness during investigation and neither
the PW-4 accepted the presence of PW-1 nor PW-1 accepted the
presence of PW-4 at the time of incident. It is lastly submitted by
learned counsel for the first informant that the bail application of the
co-accused of Vikas Sharma bearing bail no.19405 of 2023 was
rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.04.2024, who
has having similar role as that of the applicant. Therefore, bail
application of the present applicant is also liable to be rejected.

7. Considering the aforesaid submission and taking into account that
it is not in dispute that the alleged eyewitness PW-2 and PW-3 did not
support the prosecution story during the trial and presence of PW-1 is
doubtful and recording the statement of PW-4 after more than one
month itself creates doubt as well as considering the fact that while
rejecting the bail application of the co-accused Vikas Sharma, the
statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 were not on record and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
                                                       BAIL No. 14397 of 2025
                               4


application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Udit Sharma, 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.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.

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

11. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant
as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

12. 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.

13. 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.
                                                                                       BAIL No. 14397 of 2025
                                                                 5


                                    14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
                                    through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison
                                    portal and Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours 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 as well as Pila Pahan @
                                    Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in
                                    Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.



                                                                          (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    S.C.




Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad