Allahabad High Court
Akash Singh vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135559 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14837 of 2025 Applicant :- Akash Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Prateek Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This is the third bail application on behalf of applicant. The first one was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13108 of 2024 and the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.30821 of 2024.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.120 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground the trial is moving at a snail’s pace and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as he is incarcerated since 15.01.2024, as such, the period of incarceration comes out to be one year and seven months.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the co-accused person Satish Kumar Patel @ Guddu has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.5.2024, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail as the role of the applicant is on a similar footing to the co-accused personSatish Kumar Patel @ Guddu. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained as he is on bail on that case. One case was instituted subsequent to the instant case. The applicantis ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person and he was named in the FIR. The co-accused personSatish Kumar Patel @ Guddu was not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on and the applicant is the assailant in it. The prosecution evidence is complete, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end.
8. This Court had called for status of trial and the status report filed by the Trial Court dated 06.08.2025 indicates that the prosecution evidence is complete as eight witnesses were examined and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26.05.2025 and the case is fixed for defence evidence, although already one defence witness has been examined.
9.The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
10. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.
11. In Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.
12. In State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.
13. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280 the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
14. In Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
15. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89 the Supreme Court has observed “when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant.”
16. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs.State of Rajasthan(2022) 3 SCC 501 it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010) 14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022) 8 SCC 559.
17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the trial being at its conclusive end and there being no new ground for pressing the third bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
18. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
19. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
20. 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.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)