Allahabad High Court
Karan Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136844 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45656 of 2024 Applicant :- Karan Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Singh,Vikas Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Uttam, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vikas Kumar Chaubey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. This third application for bail has been filed by applicant-Karan Sharma seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station-Lalganj, District-Mirzapur during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 306 of 2022 (State Vs. Karan Sharma and Others), under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station-Lalganj, District-Mirzapur now pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mirzapur.
4. The first bail application of applicant-Karan Sharma was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 07.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55838 of 2022 (Karan Sharma Vs. State of U.P.). Subsequently, applicant filed his repeat application for bail, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20415 of 2024 (Karan Sharma Vs. State of U.P.). The same also came to be rejected by this Court, vide order dated 31.05.2024. For ready reference, the order dated 31.05.2024 is reproduced hereinunder:-
"2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
3. Perused the record.
4. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Karan Sharma seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Lalganj, District, Mirzapur during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 306 of 2022 (State Vs. Karan Sharma and others), under Sections 302, 341 I.P.C.. Police Station-Lalganj, District, Mirzapur now pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mirzapur.
5. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 07.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55838 of 2022 (Karan Sharma Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 07.12.2022 is reproduced herein under:
"1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Karan Sharma seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Lalganj, District-Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 24.08.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 25.08.2022 was lodged by first informant Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma (Father of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No. 118 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Lalganj,, District-Mirzapur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons namely Karan Sharma (husband), applicant herein,Ranno (nanad) of the deceased have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that the named accused caused death of daughter of first informant.
6. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of afore-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.
7. Thereafter, inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of panch witnesses, nature of death of deceased was characterised as homicidal. Subsequent to above the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of deceased, found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased.
"i. One contusion wound size 2x2 cm present at the right side of temporal bone just above right ear with right side temporal bone fractured.
8. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
9. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have supported the F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigation Officer, which is substantially adverse to named accused, he opined to submit charge sheet. Accordingly, he submitted the charge sheet dated 04.06.2022 whereby named accused have been charge sheeted under sections 302/34 I.P.C.
10. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Ranno has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34372 of 2022 (Ranno Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, same is reproduced herein-under:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as being sister of co-accused Karan Sharma, who is husband of the the deceased. As per the allegation made in the FIR it is alleged that the incident took place on 24.05.2022 at about 3:30 p.m. The applicant and husband of the deceased has caused injuries to the deceased as a result she died after eight years of her marriage. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that this applicant has caused injuries or assisted the co-accused for causing injuries to the deceased. Further submission is that the applicant is married girl and no any specific role has been assigned to her. She is languishing in jail since 26.05.2022 having no any criminal antecedent. In case she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the applicant is being married girl and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Smt. Ranno involved in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Lalganj, District Mirzapur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected of the commission of which she is suspected.
5. 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.9.2022 "
11. On the basis of above, learned counsel for applicant submits that criminality alleged against applicant and aforementioned co-accused is common. As such, same is interlinked and intertwined therefore incapable of separation or segregation. However, irrespective of aforesaid, co-accused Ranno, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is thus urged that in view of aforesaid facts as well as for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail order of aforementioned named/charge sheeted co-accused Ranno, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
12. With reference to post mortem report, learned counsel for applicant contends that deceased had not sustained any grievous or fatal injury. As such, it cannot be said that there was an intention on the part of applicant to cause death of deceased. As there is no mens-rea on the part of applicant to commit the crime in question, present case shall fall under Section 304 I.P.C. and not Section 302 I.P.C. It is further contended that though the applicant is husband of deceased and a named as well as charge-sheeted accused but he is innocent. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents and has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in custody since 26.05.2022. As such, he has undergone more than six months of incarceration. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. Charge-sheet having been submitted against applicant, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail
13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that named as well as charge-sheeted co-accused is a lady and by virtue of provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., she was entitled to be enlarge on bail. As such, no parity can be claimed by present applicant with co-accused Ranno. Learned A.G.A. next submits that occurrence has taken place in the house of applicant. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 106 Evidence Act, burden is upon the applicant to explain the manner of occurrence. However, the said burden has not been discharged by applicant upto this stage. Plea raised by learned counsel for applicant in proof of innocence of applicant i.e. the deceased received injury by falling from Tractor is prima-facie false. On the cumulative strength of above, learned A.G.A. vehemently submits that present applicant is liable to be rejected.
14. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is a named accused as well as charge-sheeted accused, no benefit can be claimed by applicant with similarly situate co-accused Ranno who has been enlarged on bail by virtue of provisions contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C., failure on the part of applicant to discharge the burden under Section 106 Evidence Act but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
16. Consequently, present application fails and is therefore liable to rejected.
17. Accordingly, present application for bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 7.12.2022 "
6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that subsequent to the above order dated 07.12.2022, the trial of applicant commenced before court below by way of aforementioned Sessions Trial. Upto this stage only one prosecution witness namely Deelip Kumar Sharma, the first informant has deposed before court below. Applicant is in jail since 25.06.2024. The charge-sheet against applicant was submitted on 04.06.2022 whereas framing of charge order was passed on 16.08.2022. In spite of the fact that a period of more than one year and nine months has rolled by from the date of framing of charge order, only one prosecution witness of fact has deposed before court below. As such the prosecution is not pursuing the trial with due diligence and perseverance. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that right to speedy trial is now recognized as a fundamental right of an accused. Admittedly, the applicant is in jail, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the delay in the progress of trial. Therefore liberty of applicant cannot be curtailed on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225. On the above conspectus, he contends that since an accused has the right to speedy trial and the said right of the applicant stands infringed, therefore applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
8. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one.Applicant is in custody since 26.05.2022. As such he has undergone more than two years of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant is the husband of the deceased and a named and charge-sheeted accused. The deceased has died on account of fatal blow given by the applicant to his own wife, which fact is evident from the statement of the father of applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and also the period of punishment provided for the alleged offence, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of appliant. On the above premise, he therefore contends that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. According to the learned A.G.A. the prosecution is diligently pursuing the trial, therefore, it cannot be said that there is delay in proceedings of trial on account of the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. therefore contends that no new, good or sufficient ground exists to enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant, coupled with the fact that applicant is the husband of the deceased and he has been charge sheeted under Section 302 I.P.C., the deceased is the wife of the applicant, criminality alleged by the applicant is evident from the statement of the father of applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the nature and gravity of offence, period of incarceration,objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, therefore irrespective of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court finds that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.
10. As a result, present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
11. It is accordingly rejected."
5. Applicant has now approached this Court by filing this third application for bail.
6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that up to this stage, 5 prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before Court below. Four prosecution witnesses of fact have been declared hostile. One prosecution witness has supported the FIR i.e. the mother of deceased. However, in her deposition before Court below, she has clearly and categorically stated that the deceased fell from cot and sustained injury. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that all the five prosecution witnesses, who have deposed before Court below up to this stage, have not supported the complicity of present applicant in the crime in question. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for applicant that in view of above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
7. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.05.2022. As such, he has undergone more than 3 years of incarceration. The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Furthermore, once the statement of the first informant has already been recorded before Court below as well as other prosecution witnesses of fact have also deposed before Court below, therefore, in that eventuality, in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, then it cannot be said that applicant shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. He, therefore, submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent development, there does not exist any good or sufficient ground so as to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed this third application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Learned A.G.A. has then invited the attention of Court to the recital occurring in paragraph-9 of the order dated 31.05.2024. With reference to the same, the learned A.G.A. submits that applicant himself is responsible for causing death of his wife by striking the fatal blow. Even though, the father of applicant has turned hostile in his deposition before Court below, however, unless and until, the statement of the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy of the body of deceased is recorded before Court below and the exact cause of death of deceased cannot be ascertained. He, therefore, submits that in view of aforementioned incriminating circumstance, no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged on record so as to enlarged the applicant on bail. As such, this third application for bail is liable to be rejected.
9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
10. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused, accusations made, coupled with the fact that since the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this third application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the this third application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail during the pendency of trial.
11. As a result, this third application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.
12. It is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Vinay