Allahabad High Court

NARENDRA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence and with no risk of tampering or intimidation, the accused is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Narendra Sharma, who was charged under Sections 105, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. for the death of an informant. The applicant claimed false implication, noting the FIR was lodged belatedly, lacked a date and time of the incident, and that the post‑mortem injuries differed from the initial medical examination, suggesting no direct link to the accused. The State could not produce corroborative evidence or demonstrate a risk of tampering, intimidation, or trial delay. The court observed that the applicant had been in custody for over a year with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions, and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the accused can be granted bail despite serious charges under the B.N.S.
Whether the FIR and medical evidence sufficiently establish a prima facie case against the accused
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay if released on bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 105, 115(2), 351(2), 352

Subjects

bail
FIR
false implication
evidentiary insufficiency
criminal procedure
sections 105, 115(2), 351(2), 352
post‑mortem variance
no enmity

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6573 of 2026

Narendra Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Manoj Kumar Gautam, Sushil Kumar
Tewari, G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA
for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2025, under Sections 105,
115(2), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Nagina Dehat, District-
Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. There was no prior enmity between the
parties. No date or time of the incident has been mentioned in the first
information report, which was lodged on 21.09.2025 at 15:12 hrs. under
Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) B.N.S. As per the allegations contained in
the first information report, the informant (since deceased) was grazing his
cattle near a river, when the applicant arrived there and started abusing him.
When the informant objected to the abuse, the applicant assaulted him by
kicks and fists. The informant was examined prior to lodging of the first
information report on 20.09.2025 at 10:20 p.m. at the Community Health
Centre, Bijnor. As per the medical report, the informant was brought by
PRD No. 9028 Gambhir Singh. The attending doctor recorded following
injuries: (i) T.S. (5x1.5 cm) bluish cont. (3x1 cm) present Rt. side of face just
below Rt. eye; (ii) Reddness of Lt. eye; (iii) T.S. (3x1.5 cm) present Lt. nose;
(iv) Complaint of pain at abdomen and no injury mark visible. No G. D.
Entry prior to lodging of the first information report is available in the case
diary. The informant succumbed to his injuries on 21.09.2025 at 10:00 p.m.
The postmortem report records following injuries: (1) Abraded contusion
bluish in colour size 9cmx5cm present on Rt. side eye and around the eye
with just below Rt. eye; (2) Abraded contusion 4cmx2.5cm present on root of
BAIL No. 6573 of 2026
2

nose; (3) Abraded contusion 4cmx1cm on reddish scab wound present on Lt.
forehead present above Lt. eyebrow; (4) Abraded contusion 2cmx2cm on
reddish scab wound present on Lt. side near to Lt. eye; (5) Multiple abraded
contusion 7cmx7cm on reddish scab would present Lt. lateral side on neck.
In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death is coma due to ante mortem
head injury. It is contended that the injuries recorded in the postmortem
report are at variance with those recorded during the initial examination
conducted at Community Health Centre, Bijnor on 20.09.2025. It is
contended that non-mentioning of the date and time of the alleged incident in
the first information report and alleged assault by kicks and fists could not
have caused an injury of such nature and severity. It appears that the
informant fell from a height and sustained injuries, and the applicant was
subsequently implicated. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has
been explained in paragraph no.33 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application and in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit. The
applicant is in jail since 26.09.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he
will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA has 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 the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. No prior enmity existed between the parties. No date or time of
the incident has been mentioned in the first information report. The
informant (since deceased) was examined prior to lodging of the first
information report on 20.09.2025 at 10:20 p.m. at the Community Health
Centre, Bijnor. The injuries recorded in the postmortem report are at
variance with those recorded during the initial examination conducted at
Community Health Centre, Bijnor on 20.09.2025. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the
applicant has remained confined for more than one year and after submission
of charge sheet 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 delay
the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case,
I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Narendra Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case crime
be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:
BAIL No. 6573 of 2026
3

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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 30, 2026
Abhishek (Vivek Varma, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…