Aviraj Sharma vs. State Of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 111, 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Kandhrapur, District- Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant has no concern with the firms styled as M/s Vidhya Traders, M/s Abhiraj Treding, M/s Muni Gee Transport Company and M/s Maa Ambey Scrap Mart. The name of the applicant was neither disclosed by the drivers of the two vehicles namely, Vijay Kumar and Vedveer, who were arrested at the spot nor the CDR of the mobile phone of the applicant shows that he was not in contact with the aforesaid drivers. It is next contended that there is no direct, indirect involvement or participation of the applicant in the alleged offence. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of the investigation. The applicant has neither forged any document nor indulged in evasion of GST. It is submitted that the bank accounts linked with the four firms do not belong to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Bhagwan Singh @ Bhora Pradhan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21800 of 2026 (Bhagwan Singh @ Bhora Pradhan vs. State of U.P.). The applicant is in jail since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Tiwari, Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, Jitendra Singh, Purnendu Pratap, Rahul Kumar, Rahul Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Aviraj Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

2026. Further, as per the averments made in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the 2nd supplementary affidavit the applicant has no criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. Identically placed co-accused Bhagwan Singh @ Bhora Pradhan has been granted bail by this Court. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the alleged offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for almost seven months and 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant, Aviraj Sharma involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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 17, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 11148 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad