Vikram Bhardwaj vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Vikram Bhardwaj seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.324 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 317(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Gabhana, District Aligarh.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with the informant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 8.10.2025. It is submitted that eight accused persons including the applicant are named in the FIR but no specific and separate role of causing injury to the injured persons has been assigned to applicant either in the FIR or in the statement of injured persons and as per the medical report/injury report available on record the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. It is further submitted that applicant has not committed any offence of robbery or dacoity and no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of applicant except recovery of one mobile from him. It is argued that co-accused Adarsh Kumar, Deepak, Abhishek, Khem Singh @ Khemi having similar role have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 4.11.2025, 11.11.2025, 19.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.38430 of 2025, 39321 of 2025, 39257 of 2025, 39012 of 2025 respectively and parity is sought in the matter. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal

¶11

BAIL No. 44281 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

antecedents to his credit. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 27.11.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances

¶20

BAIL No. 44281 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

appearing in the evidence against him.

¶23

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶25

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

December 16, 2025 RA

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikram Bhardwaj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Bhardwaj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radharaman @ Rinku vs State of U.P.

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Atul Kulshreshtha vs State of U.P.

Shyam Gupta vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P.

Laakhan Singh Yadav vs State of U.P.