NITESH SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

               HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 490 of 2026

Nitesh Sharma
                                                                  .....Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                            :    Kuldeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                           :    G.A.

Court No. - 75
                         HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bade
Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the State has served a copy of compliance affidavit
dated 05.05.2026 to learned counsel for the applicant. The same is filed today
in Court which is taken on record.

4. Although there is no office report regarding compliance of paragraph 5 of
the order dated 22.04.2026 through which a report from the C.J.M.,
Ghaziabad was called for regarding compliance of the previous order dated
20.01.2026 regarding service of notice on the respondent no.2. but learned
counsel for the State submits that as per paragraph 2 & 3 of the said affidavit
of compliance notice has been served personally on the opposite party no.2
on 25.12.2025 and then on 05.05.2026, proof of service of notice is annexed
at page 4 & 5 of the said affidavit respecitvely. Despite service of notice twice,
no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and neither he is present
before the Court.

5. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

6. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the
appellant- Nitesh Sharma, with the prayer to set aside the impugned order
dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr,
arising out of Case Crime No. 374 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1), 238 B.N.S.
and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Anoop Shahar, District
Bulandshahr.

7. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 26.09.2025
                                                             CRLA No. 490 of 2026
                                  2

by Ashish Chandra against Babloo Sharma alleging therein that he has his
house in Ghaziabad where they live. His brother Siddharth Chandra was liking
a silent atmosphere and thus he used to stay in hotels often. He has a mobile
phone on which they used to talk. Siddharth Chandra was unwell and thus he
showed his willingness to shift in a hotel. The informant asked him to consult a
hospital but he stated of getting treated while living in the hotel. On 03.09.2025
he came to Ghaziabad and then he asked for shifting in a hotel on which the
informant shifted him in hotel Grand Tushar in Ghaziabad. On 04.09.2025 his
brother again came to the house and after staying there for sometime went
back. Around 4-5 days earlier he had talked to his bua. Subsequently on
25.09.2025 Rajesh Gayatri the maternal uncle of the informant told him that an
unknown dead body has been recovered within the territory of Police Station
Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahr and it appears to be that of Siddharth
Chandra. After sometimes he received a call from the S.H.O. Anoop Shahar
and he sent the photographs of the said body from which the informant
identified it as the body of his brother Siddharth Chandra. His brother had
good amount in his bank account and due to the same some person has
murdered him. He used to be in touch with Babloo Sharma who was working
in Swish Hotel, Ghaziabad and one or two times they had talked to each other.
He suspects that Babloo Sharma has murdered his brother. A report be
lodged and action be taken.

8. The postmortem examination on an unknown dead body was conduced on
24.09.2025 at 05:30 PM which was found to have received the following four
injuries:-

"1. Injury No 1. TWO LIGATURE MARKS PRESENT ALL AROUND THE NECK NO GAP
PRESENT IN BOTH LIGATURE MARKS, FIRST LIGATURE OF SIZE 32 CM IN LENGTH AND
WIDTH IS 2 CM AT RIGHT SIDE NECK. 4 CM AT CHIN AND 1.5 CM AT LEFT SIDE NECK,
MARK SITUATED AT 3 CM BELOW FROM RIGHT EAR, 6 CM BELOW FROM CHIN AND 7
CM BELOW FROM LEFT EAR.


2. SECOND LIGATURE OF SIZE 32 CM IN LENGTH AND WIDTH IS 1.5 CM AT RIGHT SIDE
NECK, 4 CM AT CHIN AND 1.5 CM AT LEFT SIDE NECK, MARK SITUATED AT 7 CM BELOW
FROM RIGHT EAR, 6 CM BELOW FROM CHIN AND 7 CM BELOW FROM LEFT EAR,
HORIZONTALY PLACED ALL AROUND THE NECK, ON EXPLORATION OF NECK
ECCHYMOSIS PRESENT UNDERNEATH FRONT AND LEFT SIDE OF NECK AND HYOID
BONE FOUND FRACTURED.


3. MULTIPLE LINEAR ABRASIONS SUSPECTED NAILS ABRASIONS IN AN AREA OF 11 CM
X 5 CM ON LEFT SIDE NECK, 4 CM BELOW FROM LEFT MANDIBLE AND 4 CM ABOVE
FROM LEFT STERNO CLAVICLE JOINT


4. ON EXPLORATION OF CHEST CAVITY 4,5 AND 6TH RIBS OF RIGHT SIDE AND 4,5,6,7
                                                               CRLA No. 490 of 2026
                                   3

AND 8TH RIBS OF LEFT SIDE FOUND FRACTURED, RIGHT LUNG FOUND LACERATED
AND ABOUT 800 ML CLOTTED AND FREE BLOOD FOUND IN THORACIC CAVITY."


The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem
strangulation and injuries.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not named in
the first information report. It is submitted that the present case is a case of
circumstantial in nature and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is
submitted that the implication of the appellant has surfaced in the matter in the
confessional statement of co-accused Babloo Sharma who was arrested and
then a motorcycle was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that the
said statement of co-accused is an inadmissible evidence. It is submitted that
the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the appellant,
Babloo Sharma and Sanju @ Mohit on which the court concerned has taken
cognizance, paragraph 6 and Annexure-SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit
dated 27.04.2026 have been placed before the Court. It is submitted that a
CCTV footage of Hotel Classic was recovered by the Investigating Officer in
which also although it is seen that four persons are going on motorcycle but
the name of the appellant is not disclosed therein and that he is not identified
as one of the said persons. It is submitted that links in the chain of
circumstances are conspicuously missing. It is submitted that there is no
recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or on the
pointing out of the appellant as stated in para 17 of the affidavit. It is further
submitted that co-accused Mohit @ Sanju has been granted bail by another
Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 1895 of 2026, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-SA-5 to
the said supplementary affidavit. The appellant has no criminal history as
stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 29.09.2025.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the co-accused Babloo Sharma who is named in the first
information report was arrested and then he has named the appellant and co-
accused Mohit @ Sanju as the accused who had accompanied him and they
had committed the present incident. It is submitted that thus the implication of
the appellant has surfaced during investigation.

11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is evident that the appellant is not named in the first information report. His
implication has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of
co-accused Babloo Sharma. There is no recovery of any incriminating material
either from the possession or on the pointing out of the appellant. The present
case is a case of circumstantial in nature. There is no eye-witness to the
                                                                CRLA No. 490 of 2026
                                   4

murder. Except for naming of the appellant in the confessional statement of
co-accused there is no other evidence against him. The charge-sheet in the
matter has been submitted against. Co-accused Mohit @ Sanju has been
granted bail.

12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence
and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of
tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the appellant may
be enlarged on bail.

13. Let the appellant- Nitesh Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid
case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or
harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every
date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial
court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with
law.

(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to
secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be
issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in
such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him,
in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

(v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording
of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial
court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it
shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail
and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude
the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.
                                                                                                   CRLA No. 490 of 2026
                                                                      5

                                    14. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court
                                    concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above,
                                    court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to
                                    prison.

                                    15. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

                                    16. The impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge
                                    (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    AS Rathore
                                                                                                     (Samit Gopal,J.)




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