HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31208 of 2026 alongwith CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28648 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. As both the bail applications are connected and arise from same FIR therefore both are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Counter affidavits filed by informant in both the bail applications and rejoinder affidavit filed by applicant-Lalley Dhuriya against the counter affidavit filed by State are taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant-Kamal Sharma; Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant-Lalley Dhuriya; Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashutosh Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Tripathi, Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, G.A. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Sharma, Atul Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Tripathi, Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, G.A., Pushpendra Singh, Shahrukh Khan Kamal Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Lalley Dhuriya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 4. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 61(2)A BNS, Police Station Mutthiganj, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant-Kamal Sharma submitted that however applicant is named in the FIR but even from the record it reflects that he has been made accused with the aid of Section 61(2) BNS and as per prosecution, he hatched conspiracy alongwith other accused for murder of the deceased. 6. He further submitted that except bald and verbal allegation, there is no cogent evidence which can suggest that applicant also involved in commission of the present crime. 7. He further submitted that during investigation, however investigating officer recorded the statements of two witnesses Ravi Pathak and Gopal on 04.06.2026 and they stated that they heard the applicant and others while they were hatching conspiracy but their statements, prima facie, appears to be unconvincing. 8. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence of conspiracy against the applicant on record. 9. He further submitted that however as per prosecution applicant was accused in previous case in causing injury to deceased Saksham Sharma and his friend, Ravi Pathak but during investigation in that case involvement of applicant was found false. 10. He further submitted that therefore, even it cannot be said that applicant was having any motive to participate in the present crime. 11. He further submitted that even from the CCTV footage of the incident which has been annexed at page 116 of the paper book, it reflects that co- accused Vimal Panda came on a scooty alongwith co-accused Akash who was driving the two wheeler and thereafter co-accused Vimal Panda opened fire upon the deceased. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Lalley Dhuriya BAIL No. 31208 of 2026 2 submitted that however as per prosecution applicant committed the murder of the deceased alongwith other accused but admittedly there is no eye witness account and entire prosecution case is based upon CCTV footage and from the CCTV footage it is apparent that co-accused Vimal Panda caused firearm injury to the deceased who came alongwith co-accused Akash on two wheeler. 13. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence which can also connect the applicant-Lalley Dhuriya with the instant crime. 14. He further submitted that in previous case in which deceased sustained injury alongwith his friend, applicant Lalle Dhuriya was not even accused. 15. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that however apart from the present case applicants are having criminal history of four other cases but their criminal history has been explained and except one case of Section 307 IPC, all the other cases were of minor nature. 16. They further submitted that considering the material available on record it is not proper to withhold the bail applications of applicants merely on the basis of their criminal antecedents. 17. They further submitted that investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter applicant-Kamal Sharma is in jail since 05.06.2026 while applicant-Lalley Dhuriya is in jail since 29.05.2026. 18. They further submitted that therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicants should be enlarged on bail. 19. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicants involved in commission of the present crime but they could not dispute the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, so far as it relates to evidence available against the applicants on record. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 21. However applicants were named in the FIR but it reflects there is no eye- witness account. 22. Record further suggests that entire prosecution case is based on CCTV BAIL No. 31208 of 2026 3 footage of the alleged incident. The extract of the same has been noted by the Investigating Officer in the case diary which has been annexed along with the bail application of co-accused Kamal Sharma at page 116 and from its perusal it reflects co-accused Vimal Panda and Akash came on a two wheeler which was being driven by co-accused Akash and thereafter co- accused Vimal Panda opened fire upon the deceased. From the CCTV footage it could not be reflected that either applicants were present at the spot or they participated in the alleged commission of the crime. 23. Further, however as per prosecution applicant-Kamal Sharma was not present at spot and he hatched conspiracy and for conspiracy Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two witnesses Ravi Pathak and Gopal but their statements were recorded after two weeks and even according to them they heard the accused persons while they were making plan to commit murder of the deceased. The statement of these witnesses, even prima facie, appears to be unconvincing. 24. In considered view of this Court, in absence of any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of evidence available on record it cannot be said that applicants are involved in commission of the present crime. 25. Further, however as per prosecution before the incident deceased sustained injuries in which applicant-Kamal Sharma was also one of the accused in the FIR and therefore he was having motive to eliminate him but record further suggests that during investigation involvement of the applicant-Kamal Sharma was found false and no charge sheet was filed against him. 26. Further, as far as case of applicant Lalley Dhuriya is concerned in the above case he was not even accused. 27. Further however apart from the present case, applicants are having criminal history of four other cases but their criminal antecedents have been duly explained and considering the facts of the case and nature of previous criminal antecedents of the applicants, in considered view of this Court, merely on the basis of their criminal antecedents it is not proper to withhold their bail applications. 28. Further investigation of the case has been concluded and in the present matter applicants are in jail for last four months. BAIL No. 31208 of 2026 4 29. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 30. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail applications are allowed. 31. Let the applicants-Kamal Sharma and Lalley Dhuriya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 32. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicants. 33. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 28, 2026 Ankita BAIL No. 31208 of 2026 5 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad