VIKRANT ALIAS BITTUversusSTATE OF U.P.

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16711 of 2026

Vikrant Alias Bittu
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                 Versus
State of U.P.
                                                          .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                  :   Prakhar Saran Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :   G.A., Kameshwar Singh

Court No. - 67
                 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the first
informant and Sri Himanshu Kumar, 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. 0008 of 2026, under Sections
103(1), 109, 324(2), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 & 117(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant
was not named in the FIR, wherein allegations were made against
some unknown boys. Subsequently, the injured, in his first statement
recorded on 14.01.2026, made allegations against the co-accused
persons for assaulting him as well as the deceased; however, no
allegation was made against the present applicant except that the
injured stated that he was not sure about the presence of the
applicant and would inquire from the villagers regarding the same.
Thereafter, the second statement of the injured was recorded after
more than one month from the date of the first statement, wherein,
though allegations were made against the other accused persons, but
it was also mentioned that the applicant was involved in the aforesaid
incident. Likewise, other witnesses, namely Lucky and Bijendra
Singh, were examined after more than 17 days and they too stated
that the applicant was involved in the incident in question, without
making any specific allegation against the applicant or assigning any
weapon to him. It is further submitted that the first statement of the
injured itself was recorded after his discharge from the hospital,
                                                       BAIL No. 16711 of 2026
                               2


wherein he did not make any allegation against the applicant;
however, subsequently, as an afterthought, the name of the applicant
was introduced in the second statement of the first informant, which
was recorded after more than one month from the first statement,
despite no specific role or weapon having been assigned to the
applicant. The aforesaid statements themselves create doubt upon
the prosecution story.

4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no
recovery of any weapon has been made on the pointing out of the
applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated and there is no incriminating
material against him. It is further submitted that co-accused Harsh
Hun has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13674 of 2026 vide order
dated 08.05.2026 and, therefore, the applicant, having an identical
role, is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history, the
charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and,
therefore, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The
applicant is a law-abiding citizen and has been languishing in jail
since 13.02.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse
the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as
learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and submitted that, though the first informant as well as the
injured did not make any allegation against the applicant in their first
statements, the name of the applicant was mentioned in the
application given by the father of the deceased on 05.01.2026 on the
basis of information received from the villagers. It is further submitted
that, in the second statement, though the same was recorded after
more than one month from the first statement, allegations have been
made against the applicant regarding his involvement in the incident
in question. However, they could not dispute the fact that the said
statement itself was recorded after more than one month and even
the statement of the eye-witness, Lucky, was recorded after more
than 17 days without any explanation for such delay. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and taking into
                                                    BAIL No. 16711 of 2026
                             3

account the fact that similarly situated co-accused has already been
enlarged on bail, and keeping in view the nature of the offence, the
evidence, and the complicity of the accused, as also the fact that the
applicant was neither named in the FIR nor in the first statement of
the injured, and that allegations against the applicant showing his
involvement in the incident in question were made by the injured
witness only in his second statement, which was recorded after more
than one month from his first statement, which itself creates doubt
upon the prosecution story, and the heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts, as well as considering the mandate of
the judgment of the Apex Court in Kapil Wadhawan vs Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as
well as the guidelines of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P., 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 application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant- Vikrant Alias Bittu, 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.

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

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

10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant
                                                                                           BAIL No. 16711 of 2026
                                                                   4

                                    as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

                                    11. 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.

                                    12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
                                    through Jail Superintendent, Gautam Budh Nagar via e-mail or e-
                                    prison portal 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.


                                                                                 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

                                    May 18, 2026
                                    SA




Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad