Birbal vs State of U.P.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 123 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Adampur, District- Amroha, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2023 after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to smothering but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 10.06.2022 i.e. for last more than three years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded.

¶11

He further submitted that in the charge sheet, there are as many as 31 witnesses and till date, only 12 witnesses could be examined, therefore, there is no chance of early disposal of trial. He further submitted that there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial.

¶12

He further submitted that even when informant i.e. father of the deceased and her uncle and brother-in-law (jija) appeared before the trial court as P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively then they did not support the prosecution case and even P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been declared hostile.

¶13

BAIL No. 8559 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to smothering within seven years of her marriage and there was also allegation of demand of dowry, therefore, first bail application of the applicant was dismissed but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than three years and till date out of 31 witnesses of the charge sheet only 12 could be examined.

¶17

He further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence, which can suggest that applicant is causing delay in trial. He further could not dispute the fact that uncle and jija of the deceased did not support the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.

¶18

He further could not dispute the fact that however, informant of the case i.e. father of the deceased has not been declared hostile but he also did not support the prosecution case before trial court. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶20

However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage due to smothering and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than three years. Considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects, out of 31 witnesses of charge sheet till date only 12 witnesses could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial. Further, from the report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial.

¶21

Further, law is settled, right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail and considering the facts of the case, it can not be said, fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

¶22

Record also suggests that informant was father of the deceased and

¶23

BAIL No. 8559 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

when he was examined by before the trial court as P.W.1 then he did not support the prosecution case. Further, P.Ws. 2 and 3, who were also close relatives of the deceased, have also not supported the prosecution case before the trial court and they have been declared hostile.

¶26

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶27

Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or for preventive purpose.

¶28

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶30

Let the applicant- Birbal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶31

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶34

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶35

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.

¶36

September 12, 2025 KK Patel

¶37

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Birbal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birbal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Irshad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit vs State of U.P.

Billo Alias Neeraj vs State of U.P.

Upendra Kumar Alias Sonu Pandit vs State of U.P.

Bhagchandra Alias Pradhan Rajpoot vs State of U.P.

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Alias Sanjeev Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another