Dismissed¶14

Amar Kumar Alias Amar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2025BAIL/21148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail application - delay in trial as sole ground - S.T. No. 71 of 2023 / Case Crime No. 391 of 2022, Sections 452, 376, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Paschim Sarira, District Kaushambi - earlier bail applications rejected on 6.6.2023 and 10.04.2024 - applicant in jail since 16.01.2023 - only two witnesses examined - serious role of accused - bail rejected - trial Court directed to conclude trial within further one year - Allahabad High Court, Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 21148 of 2025, decided 5.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

In view of the order dated 10.4.2024 passed on the second bail application and the very serious role of the accused-applicant, delay in trial alone does not entitle him to bail. ¶12

Amar Kumar Alias Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131056

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21148 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Amar Kumar Alias Amar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Shravan Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Amar Kumar Alias Amar Singh involved in S.T. No. 71 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 391 of 2022, under Sections 452, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Paschim Sarira, District- Kaushambi.

¶9

The first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 6.6.2023 and second bail application was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2024.

¶10

The only ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in this third bail application is the delayed trial. It is further submitted that while rejecting the second bail application of the present accused applicant the trial Court was given one year time to conclude the trial but as per the order sheets appended with the affidavit only two witnesses have been examined so far and the learned trial Court as well as the prosecution is not interested to conclude the prosecution evidence. Although the time limit of one year now has been passed but the trial is still running. Appellant is in jail since 16.01.2023. On these ground, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

Keeping the view the order dated 10.4.2024 passed on the second bail application of the accused applicant, the very serious role of the present accused applicant, only on the basis of the delayed trial, in my view, he is not entitled for bail.

¶13

In view of that I do not find any cogent ground to allow this bail application.

¶14

The third bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶15

However, the trial Court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial within a further period of one year taking into account the orders passed by this Court and also the fact that the accused is under trial since 16.1.2023.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Fhd

¶17

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amar Kumar Alias Amar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Kumar Alias Amar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases