Allahabad High Court
KAMAL SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
In the absence of any eye‑witness or corroborative evidence linking the applicants to the murder, and given that their criminal antecedents do not, by themselves, justify denial of liberty, the Court held that the applicants are entitled to bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court disposed of two connected bail applications filed by Kamal Sharma and Lalley Dhuriya, who were named in FIR No. 47 of 2026 for murder. The prosecution’s case relied solely on CCTV footage showing co‑accused Vimal Panda and Akash firing at the deceased, with no eye‑witnesses and unconvincing statements of two witnesses regarding a conspiracy. Both applicants argued that there was no direct evidence linking them to the crime and that their prior criminal records were either explained or of minor nature. The Court found that the material on record did not establish the applicants’ participation in the offence and that antecedent cases alone could not justify denial of bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail to both applicants subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of eye‑witness testimony and reliance on CCTV footage and weak witness statements is sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the applicants' criminal antecedents warrant refusal of bail despite lack of direct evidence.
- Whether the alleged conspiracy alleged in the FIR constitutes a ground to withhold bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1), 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- conspiracy
- CCTV evidence
- criminal antecedents
- Section 103 CrPC
- Section 61(2) CrPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Uttar Pradesh
- murder
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31208 of 2026
Kamal Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Tripathi, Mithilesh Kumar
Shukla, G.A.
alongwith
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28648 of 2026
Lalley Dhuriya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Sharma, Atul Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Tripathi, Mithilesh Kumar
Shukla, G.A., Pushpendra Singh,
Shahrukh Khan
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. As both the bail applications are connected and arise from same FIR
therefore both are being disposed of by a common order.
2. Counter affidavits filed by informant in both the bail applications and
rejoinder affidavit filed by applicant-Lalley Dhuriya against the counter
affidavit filed by State are taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant-Kamal Sharma;
Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant-Lalley Dhuriya; Sri
Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashutosh
BAIL No. 31208 of 2026
2
Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
4. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2026, under Sections 103(1),
61(2)A BNS, Police Station Mutthiganj, District Prayagraj, during pendency
of the trial in the court below.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant-Kamal Sharma submitted that however
applicant is named in the FIR but even from the record it reflects that he has
been made accused with the aid of Section 61(2) BNS and as per
prosecution, he hatched conspiracy alongwith other accused for murder of
the deceased.
6. He further submitted that except bald and verbal allegation, there is no
cogent evidence which can suggest that applicant also involved in
commission of the present crime.
7. He further submitted that during investigation, however investigating
officer recorded the statements of two witnesses Ravi Pathak and Gopal on
04.06.2026 and they stated that they heard the applicant and others while
they were hatching conspiracy but their statements, prima facie, appears to
be unconvincing.
8. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence of conspiracy
against the applicant on record.
9. He further submitted that however as per prosecution applicant was
accused in previous case in causing injury to deceased Saksham Sharma and
his friend, Ravi Pathak but during investigation in that case involvement of
applicant was found false.
10. He further submitted that therefore, even it cannot be said that applicant
was having any motive to participate in the present crime.
11. He further submitted that even from the CCTV footage of the incident
which has been annexed at page 116 of the paper book, it reflects that co-
accused Vimal Panda came on a scooty alongwith co-accused Akash who
was driving the two wheeler and thereafter co-accused Vimal Panda opened
fire upon the deceased.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Lalley Dhuriya
BAIL No. 31208 of 2026
3
submitted that however as per prosecution applicant committed the murder
of the deceased alongwith other accused but admittedly there is no eye
witness account and entire prosecution case is based upon CCTV footage
and from the CCTV footage it is apparent that co-accused Vimal Panda
caused firearm injury to the deceased who came alongwith co-accused
Akash on two wheeler.
13. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence which can also
connect the applicant-Lalley Dhuriya with the instant crime.
14. He further submitted that in previous case in which deceased sustained
injury alongwith his friend, applicant Lalle Dhuriya was not even accused.
15. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that however apart
from the present case applicants are having criminal history of four other
cases but their criminal history has been explained and except one case of
Section 307 IPC, all the other cases were of minor nature.
16. They further submitted that considering the material available on record
it is not proper to withhold the bail applications of applicants merely on the
basis of their criminal antecedents.
17. They further submitted that investigation of the case has been completed
and in the present matter applicant-Kamal Sharma is in jail since 05.06.2026
while applicant-Lalley Dhuriya is in jail since 29.05.2026.
18. They further submitted that therefore considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, applicants should be enlarged on bail.
19. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicants involved in
commission of the present crime but they could not dispute the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, so far as it relates to
evidence available against the applicants on record.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
21. However applicants were named in the FIR but it reflects there is no eye-
witness account.
22. Record further suggests that entire prosecution case is based on CCTV
BAIL No. 31208 of 2026
4
footage of the alleged incident. The extract of the same has been noted by
the Investigating Officer in the case diary which has been annexed along
with the bail application of co-accused Kamal Sharma at page 116 and from
its perusal it reflects co-accused Vimal Panda and Akash came on a two
wheeler which was being driven by co-accused Akash and thereafter co-
accused Vimal Panda opened fire upon the deceased. From the CCTV
footage it could not be reflected that either applicants were present at the
spot or they participated in the alleged commission of the crime.
23. Further, however as per prosecution applicant-Kamal Sharma was not
present at spot and he hatched conspiracy and for conspiracy Investigating
Officer recorded the statements of two witnesses Ravi Pathak and Gopal but
their statements were recorded after two weeks and even according to them
they heard the accused persons while they were making plan to commit
murder of the deceased. The statement of these witnesses, even prima facie,
appears to be unconvincing.
24. In considered view of this Court, in absence of any other corroborative
evidence merely on the basis of evidence available on record it cannot be
said that applicants are involved in commission of the present crime.
25. Further, however as per prosecution before the incident deceased
sustained injuries in which applicant-Kamal Sharma was also one of the
accused in the FIR and therefore he was having motive to eliminate him but
record further suggests that during investigation involvement of the
applicant-Kamal Sharma was found false and no charge sheet was filed
against him.
26. Further, as far as case of applicant Lalley Dhuriya is concerned in the
above case he was not even accused.
27. Further however apart from the present case, applicants are having
criminal history of four other cases but their criminal antecedents have been
duly explained and considering the facts of the case and nature of previous
criminal antecedents of the applicants, in considered view of this Court,
merely on the basis of their criminal antecedents it is not proper to withhold
their bail applications.
28. Further investigation of the case has been concluded and in the present
matter applicants are in jail for last four months.
BAIL No. 31208 of 2026
5
29. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
30. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail applications are allowed.
31. Let the applicants-Kamal Sharma and Lalley Dhuriya, be released on
bail in the aforesaid case on 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
their personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
32. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicants.
33. 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.
September 28, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…