VIRENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1948 of 2026

Virendra Singh
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                          .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)        :   Pranav Tiwary, Sachin Kumar, Sanjeev
                                    Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Umesh Chandra Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   :   Arun Kumar, G.A., Rajrshi Gupta

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

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar,
learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ram Kumar Verma,
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. 287 of 2025, under Sections-
191(2), 103(1) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station-Naugawan
Sadat, District-Amroha, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that an accident
occurred on 30.08.2025 in which the deceased suffered injuries.
Subsequently, he was brought to hospital by one Akash as well as his
wife Babita where he died. After his death, medico legal report was
also prepared which shows the cause of death is road traffic accident.
In G.D. entry of the police dated 30.08.2025, the aforesaid incident
was also mentioned as road traffic accident by an unknown vehicle
and inquest was also conducted on 30.08.2025 wherein the first
informant was the eyewitness of the inquest, therefore postmortem
was also conducted on 30.08.2025 on the application of the first
informant mentioning therein that the deceased died in an accident,
his postmortem was necessary to be conducted in the night itself.
Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 08.09.2025 wherein the allegation
has been made that the present applicant as well as other co-
accused persons have dashed the scooty of the deceased thereby
knowingly killed him. During investigation, several eye witnesses
were examined, who stated that they had seen one Bolero Car hitting
the deceased from behind and thereafter, the deceased was
                                                      BAIL No. 1948 of 2026
                              2

seriously injured and his family members also came on the spot and
they brought him to the hospital. The CCTV footage also shows that
one Bolero Car was going in the direction of the scooty of the
deceased along with two motor cycles.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the
CDR report itself the location of the applicant was to be found in the
village at the time of incident. It was submitted that lodging of the FIR
by the first informant after almost nine days itself creates doubt over
the prosecution story as the first informant himself was a witness of
inquest. It is further submitted that the CCTV footage does not show
that the applicant was actually driving the Bolero car involved in the
accident, he has been falsely implicated having inimical relation with
the family of the deceased without there being any incriminating
material against him. It is also submitted by the applicant that neither
in the FIR nor in the statement of any of the witnesses, the
registration number of the Bolero car was mentioned, only it is
mentioned that Bolero car was having U.K. number. It is further
submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of six
cases in the accompanying affidavit. The applicant is a law abiding
citizen and he is languishing in jail since 23.09.2025. In case, he is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate
in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has submitted
that the deceased before his death has informed his wife, Babita that
applicant after hitting him with his Bolero car again ran over the same
upon him. It is further submitted that deceased received 11 injuries
which cannot be caused by simply an accident. It is further submitted
that the alleged Bolero car was recovered from the possession of the
applicant as same was identified on the basis of CCTV footage.

6. Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the arguments of learned
counsel for the first informant.

7. Considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of record, it
is clear that the applicant was not identified clearly in CCTV footage
as the person who was driving the vehicle in question and the
eyewitnesses did not state that the applicant after hitting the
deceased again ran over the vehicle on the deceased, coupled with
non-identification of the vehicle number as well as the fact that
                                                        BAIL No. 1948 of 2026
                               3


applicant's location was found to be at his home at the time of
incident 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.

8. Let the applicant- Virendra Singh, 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 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. 1948 of 2026
                                                                4

                                    13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
                                    through Bijnor Jail Superintendent 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.

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




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