Arjun vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15360 of 2026

Arjun

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Niketa Sharma, Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Mahua Kheda, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 11.12.2024. The first information report was lodged on 08.01.2025. The inordinate delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the first information report, the applicant along with two accused and an unknown person is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. The son of the informant succumbed to the injuries on 12.12.2024 during the course of treatment. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. As per the FSL report dated 01.02.2025, no poison was found. It is contended that the postmortem report does not support the prosecution case. The death of son of the informant cannot be attributed to the present incident. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not

¶11

BAIL No. 15360 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the first information report, the applicant along with two accused and an unknown person is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. As per the FSL report dated 01.02.2025, no poison was found. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Arjun, 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 Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶18