Allahabad High Court
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail as there is no credible evidence of intent or knowledge and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The applicant, Subhash Chandra Sharma, filed a bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 01 of 2026) under Section 105 of the B.N.S. and Section 3/27/25 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the accidental discharge of a firearm during celebratory firing. He relied on statements of the deceased's wife and several witnesses, asserting no prior enmity, no intent to fire at the deceased, and no knowledge of wrongdoing. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's version or demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight. The Court, after examining the record, found no credible evidence of intent or knowledge and noted the applicant had already been in custody for nine months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail disposition when the prosecution fails to establish intent or knowledge of the alleged offence?
- Whether the risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight justifies denial of bail in the present circumstances?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3/27/25
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- accidental discharge
- intent
- evidence
- witness intimidation
- personal bond
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7251 of 2026
Subhash Chandra Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dr. Akhilesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Prabhakant Singh (Senior Advocate),
Rajeev Singh (Senior Advocate), G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and counsel for the informant as
well as 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 a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Section 105 B.N.S.
and 3/27/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Fatehabad, District- Agra, during
the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Placing reliance upon the statements of the
wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Shikha and the witnesses, namely, Smt.
Kiran, Shishupal Singh, Guddi Devi, it is contended that there was no prior
enmity between the parties. The incident occurred due to accidental
discharge of a firearm during celebratory firing and was purely accidental in
nature. There is no evidence on record, at this stage, to indicate that the
applicant aimed at or pointed the firearm towards the deceased while
engaging in celebratory firing. It is further contended that the applicant
neither had the requisite knowledge nor the intention to commit the alleged
offence. 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-17 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 02.01.2026
and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for
BAIL No. 7251 of 2026
2
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 as per the statements of the wife of the
deceased, namely Smt. Shikha and the witnesses namely, Smt. Kiran,
Shishupal Singh, Guddi Devi, there was no prior enmity between the parties
and the incident had occurred due to accidental discharge of a firearm during
celebratory firing. At this stage there is no credible evidence on record to
establish that the applicant had the requisite knowledge or intention to
commit the alleged offence. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined
for almost nine months and after submission of the 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 the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Subhash Chandra Sharma, involved in the aforesaid
case be released on bail on his 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:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(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 29, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…