Allahabad High Court
DHARMVEERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Dharmveer, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 77 of 2026) alleging assault that led to the death of an informant's father. The FIR charges him under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 105 of the Indian Penal Code and a provision of the Arms Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, had only a vague and general role, and was not the principal offender responsible for the fatal head injury. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, especially since a co‑accused, Vikas, had already been granted bail. After reviewing the record, the court found no reasonable apprehension of misuse of liberty and ordered the applicant released on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused whose role in a homicide is alleged to be vague and who is not the principal offender
- Whether the State has demonstrated a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation justifying denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3/25(1-B)a
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2), 351(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- Arms Act
- false implication
- co-accused parity
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34655 of 2026
Dharmveer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief
Holder for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2026, under Sections 115(2),
351(3), 105 B.N.S., and 3/25(1-B)a Arms Act, Police Station- Ushait,
District- Budaun during pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the allegations contained in the first
information report, the applicant along with three accused is alleged to have
assaulted the informant's father. The informant's father was taken to the
District Hospital, Budaun, from where he was referred for higher centre. On
his way to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. As per the postmortem
report, the deceased sustained five injuries namely, (i) abrasion of size 7 cm
x 2 cm on right scapila; (ii) abrasion of size 8 cm x 1.5 cm on lower back;
(iii) stitched wound 4 in number size of 3 cm in length 15 cm above right
ankle; (iv) bruise size of 6 cm x 3 cm on the lower end of right leg; and (v)
contusion size of 5 cm x 4 cm over the left side of skull. In the opinion of the
doctor, cause of death is shock and coma due to antemortem head injury. It
is contended that the injury no.5 was the fatal injury. A vague and general
role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been
nominated as the principal offender, who caused the injury no.5 to the
deceased. Identically placed co-accused Vikas has been granted bail by this
court vide order dated 7.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
BAIL No. 34655 of 2026
2
No.30092 of 2026 (Vikas vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The
criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 22 of the bail
application and in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in
jail since 21.4.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the
said liberty.
4. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could
not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal
offender, who caused the injury no.5 to the deceased. Further the applicant
has presently remained confined for more than five months and there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension
has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on
bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Dharmveer involved in the aforesaid case be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 29, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…