Rashid vs State of Up

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123892

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19053 of 2025

Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.426 of 2015 (Rashid vs. State of UP), under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationLoni Border, District- Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected for want of prosecution by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.7.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15085 of 2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Seven prosecution witnesses have only been examined till date and several other witnesses are to be examined. As such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the statement of husband of the deceased has not been recorded, whereby he was the star witness as it was he who had admitted the deceased to hospital. It is further argued that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.2.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is dying declaration of the deceased person and the applicant has been assigned the main role of having sprinkled the kerosene oil over her and her sister-in-law Varisha had set her afire. As such, the applicant being the main perpetrator of the offence, is not entitled for bail.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the dying declaration of the deceased person whereby the applicant has been assigned the role of sprinkling the kerosene oil over her coupled by the fact that trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶14

The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶15

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Vikas

¶18

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashid v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amarpal vs State of U.P.

Smt Pusplata vs State of U.P.

Vijama vs State of U.P.

Ram Sharan Alias Bhure Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Golu vs State of U.P.

Shakir vs State of U.P.