Vikas Kharwar Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49242 of 2023

¶3

Vikas Kharwar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, Purnendu Pratap : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 69

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 660 of 2017 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur during pendency of the trial.

¶10

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been languishing in jail for the last eight years and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future as only two witnesses have been examined so far. It is further submitted that FIR has been lodged against unknown and name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation after about five months in some confidential information given by an informer to the police. Two witnesses Narendra Singh Yadav and Bhaskar have stated in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that they saw co-accused Raja Ram and Dharmendra Singh Yadav fleeing from the place of occurrence holding country-made pistols in their hands. It is further submitted that co-accused Raja Ram and Dharmendra Singh Yadav have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that applicant has been languishing in jail since 08.3.2018 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶12

5. FIR has been lodged against unknown as per which, some unknown persons are said to have murdered brother of the first informant Siddharthnath Singh Yadav and name of the applicant has surfaced on some confidential information given by an informer to the police. Two witnesses Narendra Singh Yadav and Bhaskar have stated

¶13

BAIL No. 49242 of 2023

¶14

2

¶15

in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that they saw co-accused Raja Ram and Dharmendra Singh Yadav fleeing from the place of occurrence holding country-made pistols in their hands. Co-accused Raja Ram and Dharmendra Singh Yadav have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.3.2018 i.e. for the last eight years and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.

¶16

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED .

¶17

7 . Let the applicant Vikas Kharwar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

(iii) 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 under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶21

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

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

¶24

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

May 12, 2026 Madhurima

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Kharwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kharwar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Singh vs State of U.P.

Niranjan Singh vs State of U.P.

Bheema Ram vs State of U.P.

Mohd Bilal vs State of U.P.

Byas Muni Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P.