Sachin Sharma Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed Sachin Sharma’s bail application in Case Crime No. 272 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli, concerning alleged forgery of documents for obtaining GST registrations. The case involved Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with corresponding IPC provisions recorded in the order. The applicant submitted that he was not named in the FIR, had been falsely implicated, and had no connection with the alleged firm. He disputed ownership of the mobile phone relied upon by the prosecution and stated that the SIM was registered in another person’s name.
He also contended that no independent evidence connected him with the alleged offence, sought parity with co-accused Sanjay Thakur and Naresh Kumar, who had already obtained bail, and argued that appropriate proceedings lay under the GST Act. The State opposed bail. Considering the applicant’s absence from the FIR, the disputed ownership of the phone/IMEI and the claim of parity, the Court found a fit case for bail without expressing any opinion on the merits. It directed release on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against evidence tampering, witness intimidation and inducement, unnecessary adjournments and misuse of liberty, together with requirements concerning undertakings and attendance before the trial court. The Court did not decide the applicant’s contention that proceedings should lie under the GST Act.
Cases Discussed
- Naresh Kumar Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench); Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3043 of 2026; 04/06/2026. The applicant cited the co-accused’s bail order to claim parity. The Court considered the claim of parity while granting bail.
- Sanjay Thakur Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench); Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7283 of 2025; 06/08/2025. The applicant relied on the bail granted to this co-accused by a coordinate Bench in support of his claim for similar relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.272 of 2025, under Sections 319 (2), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2)/3(5) B.N.S (Corresponding Sections 419, 420, 467,468, 471,34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and it is the allegation of the investigating agency that the applicant is being investigated in the present case because the applicant has apparently forged documents in connection with the procurement of GST registrations for the aforesaid entries is baseless. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged firm. He further submitted that the mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 355750323819160, relied upon by the prosecution, does not belong to the applicant and the SIM used therein was in the name of another person.
4. Learned counsel further submits that except for the aforesaid circumstances, there is no independent evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Sanjay Thakur and Naresh Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.08.2025 and 04.06.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7283 of 2025 and 3043 of 2026 respectively. Hence the applicant claims parity to co-accused. It is lastly submitted that even according to the prosecution allegations, the matter is covered by the provisions of the GST Act and appropriate proceedings, if any, lie under GST Act.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., the disputed mobile phone/IMEI is stated not to belong to the applicant, claims parity, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Sachin Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall also file an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case or misuse the liberty of bail.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.
(vii) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS.
