Allahabad High Court
GAURAV SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The bail application is allowed; the applicant is entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Gaurav Sharma, who was arrested in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 151 of 2026) under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that the FIR was initially lodged at a different police station and later transferred, and that the key witnesses, whose statements were recorded two months after the incident, were not eye‑witnesses and appeared to be chance witnesses, rendering the evidence doubtful. He also highlighted that his prior criminal cases were old, some resulted in acquittal or no charge sheet, and that he had been in custody since 6 April 2026. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions raised by the applicant. The Court, after reviewing the record, found that the witness statements were prima facie unreliable and that the applicant's past cases did not warrant denial of bail, and therefore granted bail with conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the nature of the evidence and his criminal history
- Whether the delayed statements of alleged eye‑witnesses render the prosecution's case insufficient to deny bail
- Whether prior criminal cases affect the grant of bail in the present matter
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 140(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 238, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- witness statements
- criminal history
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33324 of 2026
Gaurav Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subhash Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 238, 190,
191(2), 191(3), 61(2), 140(1) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District
Hathras, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however initially FIR of
the present case was lodged on 7.4.2026 against the applicant and co-
accused Kamal Sharma at police station Sahpau, District Hathras but
subsequently when it was found that actually matter relates to Hathras
Kotwali then FIR of the present case was transferred to P.S. Hathras
Kotwali.
4. He further submitted that admittedly informant of the case was not the eye
witness and however during investigation when Investigating Officer
recorded the statements of two witness Premlata Sarashwat and Manoj
Sharma then they claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses and stated that
applicant and several others who were 16 in numbers abducted the deceased
but their statements were recorded after 2 months and even they appear to be
the chance witnesses.
5. He further submitted that merely on the basis of statements of the above
witnesses, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder
of the deceased.
BAIL No. 33324 of 2026
2
6. He further submitted that as statements of above witnesses were recorded
after two months, therefore, their statements prima facie appears to be
doubtful.
7. He further submitted that however applicant is having criminal history of
five other cases but his criminal history has been explained and all the case
were old one and in one case he has been acquitted and in one another case
after investigation no chargesheet was filed against him.
8. He further submitted that in the present matter applicant is in jail since
6.4.2026.
9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. However it reflects, applicant was named in initial tehreer alongwith co-
accused Kamal Sharma but it further reflects, informant of the case was not
the eye witness.
12. Record further suggests that Premlata Sarashwat and Manoj
Sharma were the two eye-witnesses and they however disclosed the name of
the applicant but their statements were recorded after two months and even
from their statements they appear to be chance witnesses. Their statements,
prima facie, appear to be doubtful.
13. Further, however applicant is having criminal history of five other cases
but his criminal history has been explained and all the case were old one and
in one case applicant has been acquitted and in one another case after
investigation chargesheet has not been filed against him.
14. Further in the present matter applicant is in jail since 6.4.2026.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant-Gaurav Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid
BAIL No. 33324 of 2026
3
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 applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
18. 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 applicant.
19. 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 18, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…