Allahabad High Court
SONU SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as it lacked merit.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sonu Sharma in a criminal case (No. 99 of 2025) under IPC sections 103(1), 238 and 140(1). Sharma claimed he was falsely implicated, arguing that he was not named in the FIR and that his name appeared only in statements of three witnesses recorded after the FIR. The prosecution contended that Sharma’s house was adjacent to the victim’s house, that the witnesses had seen him at the scene, and that the case was essentially open‑and‑shut. After hearing both sides, the Court found the bail plea devoid of merit, noting the eyewitness testimony and the seriousness of the charges, and consequently rejected the bail application. The Court also directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing Supreme Court precedents on speedy trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being named only in post‑FIR witness statements
- Whether the proximity of the applicant’s residence to the crime scene and eyewitness identification justify denial of bail
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under IPC sections 103, 238 and 140 warrants refusal of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 140, 238
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- witness statements
- adjacent premises
- speedy trial
- IPC sections 103, 238, 140
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27039 of 2025
Sonu Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shanti Dhar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh
Kumar Dubey
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No.57 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shanti Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kunal
Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey,
learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State
Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 99 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 140(1), 3(5) BNS, Police
Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur, with the prayer to enlarge him on
bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is
not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the statement of three
witnesses namely, Manoj Saini, Yashpal and Rajaram, whose statements
have been recorded the next day of the institution of FIR on 23.2.2025
belatedly. The dead body was recovered from the house of one Nisha
Rastogi, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant did carry
any motive, whatsoever. The applicant is in jail since 24.2.2025 and is ready
to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 27039 of 2025
2
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the said
application categorically indicates that the house of the applicant and that of
Nisha Rastogi are immediately adjacent to each other, as they have a wall
between the houses and the dead body was recovered from the first floor of
the house of Nisha Rastogi and the applicant also resides on the first floor of
the adjacent house. The applicant and the other co-accused persons were
seen by the three witnesses in the night of the incident, as such, it is an open
and shut case. There is no reason assigned for false implication. The
statement of two witnesses have been recorded already in Court. The trial is
moving on, a such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the applicant and the co-accused persons were seen by the three
eye-witnesses, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The
bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 18, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…