Allowed

Abhishek v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2025BAIL/23496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought under BNSS Section 483 in a murder case where counsel did not press bail on merits but relied on prolonged incarceration exceeding three years, charges not yet framed, and no witnesses examined despite co-accused being on bail. The High Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant released on bail upon executing personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions against tampering evidence, criminal activity, witness intimidation, and requiring regu

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139752

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23496 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishek Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagvalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant, Abhishek, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 515 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of the trial before the Court below.

¶8

The bail application of the application before the Court below was rejected by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 7.5.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.7.2022.

¶9

As per the allegations set out in the FIR dated 25.7.2022 giving rise to the case crime number aforementioned, it is borne out that the first informant Geeta wife of late Ajeet is a widow. She had married her daughter Twinkle to one Gaurav son of Sainu, who used to work for a private firm. Gaurav unfortunately expired in an accident 08 months back. The daughter Twinkle had three children below 05 years of age. A sum of Rs.4 lacs was received from the office of Gaurav which were taken by the in-laws of Twinkle. Now to grab the insurance claim on account of death of Gavurav, the nominated persons (Sasur, Sas, Jeth, Jethani named) including the applicant (devar) killed Twinkle in the night of 24.7.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the bail plea on merit, but presses the same on the ground of period of incarceration of the applicant. He submits that the applicant is confined in jail since 26.7.2022 i.e. for over 03 years. He further submits that the bail can be granted where charge sheet has been filed, but the Trial Court has yet not framed charges and the trial has not commenced and the accused has spent considerable time in jail.

¶11

Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Naval Dipakkumar Thakkar versus State of Gujrat and another, reported in 2023 (1) Acquittal 191 (SC), Criminal Appeal No. 1161 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 605 of 2023), decided on 18.4.2023 as also upon the case of R.D. Upadhyay versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1996 (3) SCC 422 .

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the Court to the order sheet of the trial proceedings brought on record to demonstrate that the Trial is proceeding at a snail pace. It is next contended that charge sheet against the applicant, co-accused Sainu and Smt. Geeta has been filed on 18.10.2022 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same on 19.10.2022. The charge sheet against the other coaccused Rohit, Kajal and Monica has been filed under Section 147, 506 IPC and cognizance of the same has been taken on 22.2.2023. The charges against the applicant is yet to be framed. It is argued that the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2022 (10) SCC 51] has reiterated the principle that bail is a rule and jail an exception on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the prima facie, the applicant has committed the murder of the deceased Twinkle. The hammer, knife and blood stained cloth has been recovered from the possession and pointing out of the applicant and all evidence collected establishes, the complicity of the applicant in the commission of crime. Consequently, the bail application warrants rejection. Learned AGA, however, has not been able to refute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant regarding the delay in trial.

¶14

The Apex Court in Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported in 2021 (3) SCC 713 has observed that gross delay in disposal of such cases would justify the invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution and consequential necessity to release the undertrial on bail. No one justify gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials perforce remain in jail giving rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Para 15 of the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court observed as under:-

¶15

"Liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. Undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of

¶16

his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. "

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that charge sheet against the applicant was filed as far back as on 18.10.2022 and cognizance was taken on 19.10.2022, yet the charges have not been framed against the applicant so far. There are 23 witnesses to be examined and none have been examined, thus far co-accused Rohit, Nikita, Sainu, Monica have already been enlarged on bail, the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial. Consequently, the bail application is allowed

¶18

Let the accused-applicant, Abhishek , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶19

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶20

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶21

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶22

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶23

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 30.7.2025 Ravi Prakash

¶25

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishek v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases