Dismissed¶10

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2025BAIL/9827/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third successive bail rejection; Section 307 I.P.C. knife-assault case (Case Crime No. 664 of 2021, P.S. Baradari, Bareilly); applicant in jail since 16.8.2021; trial-delay ground weighed against principal-offender determination from I.O.'s materials (6-7 abdominal knife blows); punitive process issued to non-appearing Investigating Officer; trial court given further four-month evidentiary-completion deadline pursuant to 27.8.2024 directive; single-judge order, Allahabad High Court, 28.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Reaffirming its clarification contained in the earlier order dated 27.8.2024, the Court holds that the incarceration period alone is not sufficient for grant of bail to any accused. ¶9

Vijay vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the third-time applicant Vijay, in custody since 16.8.2021 in Case Crime No.664 of 2021 (Section 307 I.P.C.), should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Reaffirming its clarification contained in the earlier order dated 27.8.2024, the Court holds that the incarceration period alone is not sufficient for grant of bail to any accused.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

On the materials collected by the I.O. during investigation, the applicant is the principal offender who inflicted 6-7 knife blows in the abdomen of the injured; this factual determination underlies the refusal.

¶9

Key takeaways

No ground exists to allow the third bail application of the accused applicant; the application is rejected.ratio¶10
The trial court is very strictly directed to keep in mind the time limit framed vide order dated 27.8.2024, and a further period of four months is granted to conclude the proceedings of evidence and, if possible, achieve final disposal of the case within that period.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.), order dated 28.5.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:93033): Third bail application of applicant Vijay (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9827 of 2025) seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 664 of 2021, Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly - REJECTED. The sole ground urged was trial delay despite this Court's order dated 27.8.2024 directing conclusion preferably within six months, together with detention since 16.8.2021. Relying on its earlier clarification that incarceration alone is insufficient for bail, and on investigation materials establishing the applicant as principal offender who inflicted 6-7 knife blows in the abdomen of the injured, the Court found no ground to grant bail. Trial court strictly directed to observe the 27.8.2024 time limit; a further four months granted to conclude proceedings of evidence and, if possible, finally dispose of the case.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93033

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9827 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant - Vijay with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.664 of 2021, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District - Bareilly.

¶8

The sole ground taken in this third bail application is that while rejecting the second bail application of the applicant vide order dated 27.8.2024, this Court had directed the trial court to decide this matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months but the trial is still pending and statement of witnesses of fact have been recorded and now the trial court is proceeding to record the evidence of formal witnesses but no formal witness has been examined so far and punitive process has been issued by the trial court to the Investigating Officer of this case but he is also not appearing. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.8.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

This Court has clarified in the earlier order dated 27.8.2024 that the incarceration period alone is not sufficient for grant of bail to any accused. The materials collected by the I.O. during investigation explicitly show that the present accused applicant is the principal offender and he has inflicted 6 - 7 knife blows in the abdomen of the injured.

¶10

In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to allow the third bail application moved by the accused applicant and the same is accordingly rejected , but however at the same time the trial

¶11

court is very strictly directed to keep in mind the time limit framed by this Court vide order dated 27.8.2024 to complete the proceedings of this case and a period of further four months is granted to the trial court to conclude the proceedings of evidence in this matter and if possible for the final disposal of this case within the said period.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.5.2025 ss

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Amravati Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sumit Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Archana Devi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Eshika Yadav vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rambabu vs State of U.P. and Another

Shishir Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others