Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To BJP Leader Accused Of Beheading Friend In Agra

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot granted him bail, noting that he is not a flight risk, has always cooperated with the investigation, and he undertook to cooperate with the court proceedings.

The Court also noted that if released on bail, there is no possibility of him influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

For context, Bhargav is facing an FIR under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC for allegedly beheading his fellow BJP member. He was allegedly held by the police officials while he was looking for a place to dump the severed head near the forested Sikandra Arsena area of Agra.

According to the prosecution, Bhargav allegedly conspired to murder his friend (Naveen), and so he called him up, made him consume excessive alcohol, and subsequently shot him dead. After the killing, Bhargav and his associate allegedly dumped Naveen's body (excluding his head) in Sikandra, and they were on their way to dispose of his severed head in another district when they were held by cops.

Bhargav's first bail was rejected in January 2024, and this was his second bail plea. He has been in jail since August 2022.

Before the single judge, his counsel argued that a status report sent by the trial court records that all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the stage will shortly be set for proceedings under Section 313 CrPC/defence evidence.

It was also argued that there is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said material witnesses or tampering with the evidence, and that his continued incarceration will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy and prevent him from gathering evidence in his support thereof.

Referring to the HC's decision in the case of Prabhat Gangwar v. State of UP, wherein the right of an accused to prepare his defence and gather evidence to tender the same before the trial court for establishing his innocence was stressed upon, the single judge granted him bail.

He has been directed not to tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial and to appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

Advocate Shantanu Srivastava appeared for the petitioner