# Shivam Sharma v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3108 of 2025
- **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivam-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52801
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Balrampur to decide the Case No. 7405 of
2022 within a period of six months. It is
made clear that if the case is adjourned due
to continuous strike of Bar Association of
Tehsil Utraula then the office bearers of
concerned Bar Association will be liable
for contempt of this Court for making
interruption to the direction in Daya
Shnakar's case.

10. As the issue is effecting the public
at
large,
specifically
poor
litigants
(farmers),
this
Court
issued
general
directions for entire U.P. that in case the
proceedings under Revenue Code could not
be concluded within the time framed by
this Court in the case of Daya Shankar
(supra) because of the continuous strike of
Bar Association of any Tehsil, Collectorate
or Commissionerate, then the office bearers
of Bar Association would be liable for
contempt of this Court for violation of
direction of Daya Shanjkar's case and the
party would be at liberty to file contempt
proceedings against the office bearers of
the concerned Bar Association.

11. With the aforesaid direction, the
present petition is disposed of.

12. The office is directed to send copy
of this order to the Chairman of Board of
Revenue, who will circulate the same to all
Revenue
Authorities
from
Tehsil
to
Commissionerate (Revenue) and the copies
of the same shall also be pasted on the
Notice Board.

13. The Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to communicate the order for
compliance.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1146
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3108 of 2025

Shivam Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellant, Shivam Sharma, is
entitled to bail under Section 14-A(2) of the
SC/ST Act after rejection of his bail application
by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur.

Consideration of delay in FIR, contradictions in
complainant's
statements,
nature
of
relationship, and absence of criminal history.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Section
- 180, 183, - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023 - Section - 64, 125, 352,
351(3), - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section - 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha),
14-A(2)- Criminal Appeal under section 14-A(2)
of the SC/ST Act - against rejection bail - FIR -
offence under section 64, 352, 351(3), 125 BNS,
2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha)
SC/ST Act - grounds taken - false implication,
five-month delay in FIR, contradictions in
complainant's
statements
(recorded
under
Sections 180 and 183 BNS), and absence of
criminal
history,
conceded
custody
since
19.07.2025 - Court, noting contradictions, delay,
relationship context, age of complainant and
prolonged incarceration - held - set aside the
impugned order and ordered that that appellant
is entitled to be released on bail subject to strict
conditions, clarifying that observations in the
bail order shall not affect the merits of
trial.(Para - 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
No case cited.

LIST OF ACTS
12 All. Shivam Sharma Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
1147
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 - Section
64, 352, 351(3), 125, 180, 183.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Criminal Appeal - Bail Application - SC/ST Act -
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Delay in FIR -
Contradictory Statements - False Promise of
Marriage - Custody - Criminal History -
additional condition - satisfaction of the court.

CASE ARISING FROM
Bail rejection order dated 08.08.2025 passed by
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Case
Crime No. 78 of 2025 - Police Station: Maholi,
District Sitapur.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Shri Banwari Lal
Counsel
for
Respondent:
-
Government
Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

(Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.01 of
2025)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the
State. Despite sufficient opportunity, nonappeared on behalf of the opposite party
no.2.

2. This appeal is filed under Section
14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, challenging the order dated
08.08.2025, passed by the learned Special
Judge
(SC/ST
Act),
District-Sitapur,
rejecting the bail application (No. 242 of
2025) of the appellant, Shivam Sharma S/o
Rajesh Sharma, in connection with Case
Crime No. 0078 of 2025, under Sections
64, 352, 351(3), 125 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section
3(2)(v), 3(1)(da)(dha) of the S.C./S.T. Act,
Police Station Maholi, District-Sitapur. The
appellant
is
currently
in
jail
since
19.07.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant, aged about 30
years, is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case due to enmity
and ulterior motive. It is further argued that
there is a significant and unexplained delay
of approximately 5 months in lodging the
FIR, which was registered on 06.03.2025
for an incident allegedly occurring on
12.10.2024. The counsel contends that the
complainant, who is a married woman aged
about 30 years (as per FIR) but claimed to
be over 40 years in the grounds, having an
11-year-old
child,
was
living
in
a
relationship with the appellant. It is falsely
stated that the accused appellant established
a physical relationship on a false promise
of marriage, and it is impossible for such
relations to have continued for four years
solely on this basis. The counsel points out
that there are vast contradictions in the
statements of the complainant, which were
recorded under Section 180 BNS on
07.03.2025 and changed in her subsequent
statement under Section 183 BNS on
04.04.2025. Though the investigation noted
the medical report stated "sexual violence
cannot be ruled out," the appellant asserts
the charges are fabricated. Finally, the
appellant has no criminal history and has
been in continuous judicial custody since
19.07.2025.

4. Learned Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail, arguing that the offences
are serious, and the chargesheet has been
filed under Section 64 (Rape) BNS and
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relevant sections of the SC/ST Act.
However, the AGA could not directly
contradict the specific factual submissions
made by the appellant's counsel regarding
the significant delay of about five months
in lodging the FIR, or the contradictions
observed in the complainant's statements,
particularly the changes between her
statement recorded under Section 180 BNS
on 07.03.2025 and her later statement
recorded under Section 183 BNS on
04.04.2025. On perusal of the record, it
transpires that the complainant's age is
recorded as 1995, making her about 30
years old. She is a married woman and
mother of one child aged about 11 years,
and it appears she was living in a
relationship
with
the
appellant
and
established physical relations four years
prior to the FIR. The AGA conceded that
the record shows the appellant has no
criminal history and has been in continuous
judicial custody since 19.07.2025.

5. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, particularly the contradictory
nature of the prosecution story evidenced by
the changes in the complainant's statements
(recorded under Section 180 BNS on
07.03.2025 and Section 183 BNS on
04.04.2025) and the alleged fabricated nature
of the charges against the appellant's family
members, the significant delay of five months
in lodging the FIR, the period of incarceration
already undergone by the appellant since
19.07.2025, and the fact that the appeal
against the rejection of bail by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur, dated
08.08.2025 is the statutory right of the
appellant, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the appellant is entitled to be
released on bail.

6. In view of the above, the Criminal
Misc. Bail Application is allowed. The
impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed
by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act,
Sitapur, is set aside.

7. Let the appellant, Shivum Sharma,
be released on bail in the aforesaid Case
Crime No. 78 of 2025, under Sections 64,
352, 351(3), 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita,
2023
and
Sections
3(2)(v),
3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station
Maholi, District Sitapur, on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned,
subject
to
the
following
additional conditions:

(1) The appellant shall cooperate
with the prosecution during trial.

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper
with the evidence during trial.

(iii) The appellant shall not
pressurize/intimidate
the
prosecution
witness(s).

(iv) The appellant shall not
commit an offence.

(v) The appellant 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.

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

(vii) The appellant shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for
12 All. Ram Brijesh Vs. State Of U.P.
1149
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court.

(viii) The appellant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for

8. In case of default of above
conditions, it shall be open for the trial
court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail
and pass orders in accordance with law.

9. As this order relates to enlargement
of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that
observation(s) made in this order shall have
no bearing on the merits of the case and the
trial court shall not be influenced by any
observation(s) made in this order.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1149
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4117 of 2019

Ram Brijesh ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellant can be convicted when
the prosecution failed to prove "last seen"
evidence, motive, and ballistic linkage of the
weapon.

Whether the trial court correctly shift the burden
of proof onto the appellant despite the
prosecution's failure to establish a prima facie
case.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - - Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313 - Indian
Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 304-B,
498-A, 201, 404/411, 149 - Arms Act:
Section 25 - Dowry Prohibition Act:
Section 4 - Indian Evidence Act: Section
106- Criminal Appeal - against conviction and
sentence under Sections 395 and 397 IPC - FIR
- FIR - offence of dowry harassment, dowry
death, destruction of evidence, - later linked
with Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act
during investigation - Investigation led to
recovery of pistols and jewellery at the instance
of the appellant and co-accused - chargesheet -
Trial proceeded - examination of eleven
prosecution witnesses, including the father and
cousin of the deceased, and the medical officer
who confirmed firearm injuries, trial court
acquitted all accused of dowry-related charges,
but convicted the appellant under Section 302
IPC (life imprisonment and fine) and Section 25
Arms Act (two years imprisonment and fine) -
Appeal - appellant pleaded innocence, argued
misapplication of Section 106 Evidence Act,
absence of "last seen" evidence, lack of motive,
and inconclusive recovery - after evaluation of
evidences,
court
finds
that,
prosecution
evidence deficient, statement under section 313
Cr.P.C. could not fill gaps, further, noted failure
to examine key eyewitnesses, and emphasized
that recovery of pistols did not conclusively link
with the appellant to the fatal shot - held -
there is no evidence to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt - consequently, conviction
and sentences under Section 302 IPC and
Section 25 Arms Act were set aside; appellant
acquitted of all charges and ordered to be
released forthwith.(Para - 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 - Takhaji Hiraji
v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC
145 - Md. Anowar Hussain v. State of Assam
(2022) 19 SCC 264

LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Arms Act - Dowry Prohibition Act.

LIST OF KEYWORDS