Dismissed¶18

Ram Avtar Chauhan Alias Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2025BAIL/26524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application rejected; Allahabad High Court; Krishan Pahal J.; Sections 302, 201 IPC; Case Crime No.113 of 2023; P.S. Paniyara; District Maharajganj; prolonged incarceration since 2.4.2023; Article 21 violation claim; witnesses deposed; trial at final arguments; expeditious disposal direction; Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220; Hussain v. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702; decided 8 September 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief; bail application rejected. Trial court directed to decide the pending case expeditiously (per Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and Hussain v. Union of India) if there is no legal impediment. ¶18

Ram Avtar Chauhan Alias Pintoo Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; bail application rejected. Trial court directed to decide the pending case expeditiously (per Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and Hussain v. Union of India) if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody since 2.4.2023 and facing trial in Case Crime No.113 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201 IPC, should be granted bail in his second bail application while the trial is at the stage of final arguments.

¶9

Court's answer

Witnesses have deposed against the applicant and there is no new ground for pressing the instant bail application other than the period of incarceration.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Coupled with the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, the Court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶17

Key takeaways

The trial court was directed to decide the pending case expeditiously in view of the principles laid down in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and Hussain v. Union of India, if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶19
Observations in the order are limited to the facts brought in for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) rejected the second bail application (Criminal Misc. BAIL No. 26524 of 2025) of Ram Avtar Chauhan Alias Pintoo, sought during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.113 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Paniyara, District Maharajganj. His first bail application (Bail Appn. No.54511 of 2023) had been rejected on 11.11.2024. Grounds for refusal: witnesses had already deposed against the applicant; the only ground pressed was incarceration since 2.4.2023 (about one year five months) coupled with invocation of Article 21; and the trial-status report of 22.8.2025 showed the case fixed for final arguments, i.e., at its conclusive end. The Court nevertheless directed expeditious disposal of the pending case in view 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, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail disposal and bore no relevance to trial merits. Order dated September 8, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26524 of 2025

¶3

Ram Avtar Chauhan Alias Pintoo

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rasmi Khilwani Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Ms. Rasmi Khilwani, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.113 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station- Paniyara, District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54511 of 2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 2.4.2023, as such, he is incarcerated in jail for one year and five months and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. As such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶13

This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial

¶14

BAIL No. 26524 of 2025

¶15

¶16

court. As per the said status report dated 22.8.2025, the case is fixed for final arguments.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the witnesses have deposed against the applicant and there being no new ground for pressing the instant bail application except the period of incarceration coupled with the fact that trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶18

The present bail application is hereby 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 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.

¶21

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶22

September 8, 2025

¶23

Vikas Verma

¶24

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

Ram Avtar Chauhan Alias Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Avtar Chauhan Alias Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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