Allowed¶21

Arjun v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2025CRLA/2073/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arjun bail appeal SC/ST Act Section 14-A(2) Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench 2025:AHC-LKO:39525; Case Crime No. 135 of 2018, P.S. Bangarmau, Unnao; Sections 323 504 302 34 IPC, 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, 4/25 Arms Act; prolonged incarceration over seven years; delayed trial; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 SCC 712; Paras Ram Vishnoi Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021; bail granted, personal bond Rs. 25,000, two sureties; order dated 02.09.2019 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1631 of 2019 set aside; appellant Arjun directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 135 of 2018 on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount, subject to eight enumerated conditions. ¶21

Arjun Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Arjun, in jail since 21.03.2018 with no criminal history in a trial (Case Crime No. 135 of 2018) that has not been concluded and is not likely to be concluded in the near future, is entitled to be enlarged on bail, i.e., whether the order dated 02.09.2019 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1631 of 2019 should be set aside and the appeal allowed.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future along with the other facts and circumstances (including prolonged incarceration), this Court found the appeal to have substance and allowed it.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1631 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2018, is set aside.

¶22

Key takeaways

The appellant Arjun is to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount, subject to eight enumerated conditions (cooperation with prosecution, no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating witnesses, no fresh offence, no inducement/threat/promise, presence before trial court personally or through counsel, no adjournment seeking when witnesses are present, and personal presence for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.).ratio¶23
As the order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made therein.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania, J.; decided 10.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:39525). Appellant Arjun, booked in Case Crime No. 135 of 2018 (Sections 323, 504, 302, 34 IPC; Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act; Sections 4/25 Arms Act), P.S.-Bangarmau, District-Unnao, had been refused bail by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao on 02.09.2019 in Bail Application No. 1631 of 2019. With the incident dating to 2018, the trial unconcluded, the main fact witnesses (Kr. Meenu, Kr. Rinki) already examined, and incarceration exceeding seven years, the Court — relying on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (AIR 2021 SCC 712) and Paras Ram Vishnoi v. The Director General Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021) on bail for prolonged incarceration with delayed trial — allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal order, and directed release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions, clarifying that its observations bear no relation to the merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39525

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2073 of 2019

¶4

Appellant :- Arjun Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Raghunath Prasad,Prince Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Gulam Mustafa

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Mukesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gulam Mustafa, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

¶7

By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1631 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 302, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act & Section 4/25 of Arms Act, P.S.-Bangarmau, District-Unnao.

¶8

For the purposes of pressing the present bail, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the incident is of the year 2018, however, trial has not been concluded till date and the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 21.03.2018. This aspect of the case has not been opposed.

¶9

It is further stated that main witnesses of fact namely Kr. Meenu, Kr. Rinki have already been examined before the trial Court and as such, there is no possibility of influencing these witnesses by the appellant and other witnesses of fact are mother of complainant and one Rambali Raidas and remaining witnesses are formal witnesses.

¶10

In continuation, it is stated that according to the FIR, the basis of pending criminal proceedings Kr. Meenu and Kr. Rinki were present at the place/situs of crime and name of Rambali Raidas, who has been indicated as witness in the charge sheet, does not find place in the FIR.

¶11

It is lastly stated that delay in conclusion of trial is also one of the grounds to enlarge the accused on bail. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in

¶12

AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:-

¶13

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the 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. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of 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."

¶14

In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶15

"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶16

Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. as also Sri Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, vehemently, opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. They also stated that the main allegations are against the appellant and as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

In response, learned counsel for the appellant stated that at this stage no observation is required on the evidence available on record which would be considered before the trial Court on

¶19

merits for the reason that any observation of the Court on evidence affect the trial.

¶20

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post-mortem report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded as also judgment(s), referred above and the period of incarceration i.e. more than seven years.

¶21

Upon due consideration of above as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶22

The order dated 02.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1631 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 302, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act & Section 4/25 of Arms Act, P.S.-Bangarmau, District-Unnao, is hereby set aside.

¶23

Let appellant - Arjun be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶24

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶25

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶26

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶27

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶28

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶30

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶31

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶32

trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶33

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶34

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Vinay/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arjun v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Abhishek Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Suraj Gaud vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Urmila Devi vs Sri Sanjeev Gupta, Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Krishna Mohan Tripathi vs Superintendent of Police, C.B. I. / a. C. B. Lko.

Lalji vs Sri Arvind Kumar, Executive Engineer, Sichai Khand, Irrigation Deptt., Pratapgarh