Allahabad High Court
SARVESH KUMAR @ SANJAY @ BABAIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Sarvesh Kumar, was charged with murder under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 61(2)(a) of the BNS and Sections 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting the informant's son on 7 July 2024. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was the sole assailant, citing the FIR and statements of eye‑witnesses, while the defence argued that the FIR was delayed, there were no independent witnesses, and the co‑accused had been exonerated. The applicant’s counsel contended that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal record, and would not misuse bail. The State opposed bail, asserting that the case was straightforward and the applicant’s culpability was established. After considering the evidence and the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that the case was not suitable for bail and rejected the application. The judgment also directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the applicable provisions of the BNS and the Arms Act given the nature of the alleged offence.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of independent eyewitnesses affect the bail eligibility.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and absence of prior criminal record warrant bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- murder
- evidentiary issues
- FIR delay
- eyewitness testimony
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31102 of 2025
Sarvesh Kumar @ Sanjay @ Babai
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narsingh Pandey, Rama Shankar
Upadhyay
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 76 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Rama Shankar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant as well as
Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 351(3),
61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station-
Soraon, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons
are stated to have surrounded the informant's son (now deceased) whereby
the applicant is stated to have caused gunshot injuries to him, leading to
his instantaneous death on 07.07.2024 at about 07:00 AM.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has
nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is
delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that the other four co-accused
persons have already been exonerated by the police during investigation.
BAIL No. 31102 of 2025
2
It is contended that the alleged eye-witnesses, namely Ram Khelawan,
Pritika, Mahendra Kumar, the informant, and one Shiv Mangal, who were
named in the FIR, have not supported the prosecution case against the
said co-accused persons, and thus, the entire prosecution story stands
falsified.
7. Learned counsel has next submitted that as per the FIR itself, no person
had actually witnessed the occurrence, as all the witnesses reached the
place of incident only after hearing the sound of gunshot. It is next
contended that only a single gunshot was fired and the deceased sustained
the same on his head (cranium). It is, therefore, argued that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly in view of the fact that there
is no independent witness to the alleged incident.
8. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing
in jail since 08.07.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case,
the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
shall cooperate with trial.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant
have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an
open-and-shut case. It is contended that the applicant is the sole assailant
who caused the gunshot injury to the deceased, as mentioned in the FIR as
well as in the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded during the course
of investigation. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled
to be released on bail.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and taking into account the
fact as mentioned in the FIR that the applicant is the sole assailant who
caused the firearm injury, and that a single gunshot was fired resulting in
one gunshot injury to the deceased, this Court does not find it to be a fit
case for grant of bail.
11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
BAIL No. 31102 of 2025
3
recent judgements 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.
13. 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
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…