Allahabad High Court
DHARMVEER ALIAS DHARMIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, Dharmveer, was charged with murder under Section 103(1) of the CrPC based on an FIR lodged 11 days after the incident. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an eye‑witness, Pramod, recorded after 12 days, and CCTV footage that allegedly identified the applicant and a co‑accused as the assailants, despite the applicant not being clearly visible. The defense argued that the informant was not an eye‑witness, the key statements were delayed, and there was no direct evidence linking the applicant to the assault, also highlighting his clean record and 11 months of pre‑trial detention. The court examined the credibility of the delayed witness statements, the CCTV identification, and the seriousness of the injuries shown in the post‑mortem report. Concluding that the evidence prima facie indicated the applicant’s participation in the beating, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a murder case under Section 103(1) of the CrPC given the available evidence.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements affects the applicant's right to bail.
- Whether the lack of clear visual identification of the applicant in CCTV footage precludes bail.
- Whether the applicant's clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention warrant bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 103 CrPC
- murder
- FIR delay
- eyewitness testimony
- CCTV evidence
- post‑mortem report
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34533 of 2026
Dharmveer Alias Dharmi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 0978 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police
Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the
court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is
named in the FIR alongwith one another and according to the FIR applicant
and another accused committed the murder of the deceased but informant of
the case was not the eye witness and even FIR of the present case was
lodged after 11 days through the information given by Ravi Kumar.
4. He further submitted that when the statement of witness Ravi Kumar was
recorded then he categorically stated that he arrived at spot after the incident
and therefore, he also did not witness the real incident.
5. He further submitted that however during investigation Investigating
Officer recorded the statement of one Pramod who claimed himself to be eye
witness and he stated that applicant and co-accused were beating the
deceased due to which he sustained injuries and died but statement of this
witness was recorded after 12 days and therefore, statement of this witness
also does not appear to be reliable one.
6. He further submitted that however during investigation Investigating
Officer procured CCTV footage of the alleged incident and from its perusal
BAIL No. 34533 of 2026
2
it reflects, two persons were beating the deceased but from the footage it
could not be reflected that applicant was visible in the footage. He next
submits, however during investigation Investigating Officer very casually
mentioned in the case diary that in the footage applicant alongwith another
accused was beating the deceased but there is no cogent evidence in this
regard.
7. He further submitted that prima facie, there is no cogent evidence which
can suggest that applicant made assault upon the deceased.
8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history
and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.10.2025 i.e. for last 11
months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that
however informant was not the eye witness but from the statement of eye
witness Pramod and CCTV footage it reflects, applicant alongwith co-
accused beaten the deceased.
10. He further submitted that however when the extract of the footage was
noted by the Investigating Officer in the case diary then at that time he only
mentioned that two persons were beating the deceased but during
investigation it was revealed, applicant alongwith co-accused was beating
the deceased and considering the statement of the eye witness Pramod and
CCTV footage of the incident prima facie it cannot be said that applicant is
innocent.
11. He further submitted that even post mortem report suggests that deceased
sustained as many as 16 injuries and therefore, it reflects, he was badly
beaten.
12. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, instant bail application may be dismissed.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
14. However, there is delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR of the present case
but informant of the case was not the eye witness.
15. Further from the record, it reflects, witness Pramod was eye witness and
BAIL No. 34533 of 2026
3
according to him applicant and co-accused were beating the deceased.
16. Further, apart from the statement of eye-witness Pramod it reflects,
during investigation Investigating Officer recovered a CCTV footage of the
incident and from the CCTV footage it reflects, two persons were beating
the deceased and subsequently on the basis of CCTV footage, their identity
was disclosed as applicant and co-accused Deshpal.
17. Further, however statement of eye witness Pramod was recorded after 12
days but considering the CCTV footage, prima facie, it cannot be said that
applicant is innocent.
18. Further, even post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained as
many as 16 injuries, therefore, it reflects, he was badly beaten.
19. Further, however, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
25.10.2025 i.e. for last 11 months but considering the nature of allegations
levelled against him and post mortem report of the deceased, in view of this
Court, it is not proper to release him on bail merely on this ground.
20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in view of this Court, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
21. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
22. 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…