Allowed

Vijan Pal @ Vijay Pal @ Shambhu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2026BAIL/25992/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant who had been incarcerated for over three years in a dowry death case. The trial had examined only five of 22 witnesses, with no likelihood of early conclusion. The court allowed the second bail application, imposing standard conditions including personal bond, sureties, non-tampering with evidence, and appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, and appearance before trial court as required.

Vijan Pal @ Vijay Pal @ Shambhu Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25992 of 2026

¶3

Vijan Pal @ Vijay Pal @ Shambhu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

(Sr. No.41 out of 114)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised.

¶10

Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24932 of 2025.

¶12

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.421 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that, as a new ground, it is the period of incarceration, as the applicant is in jail since 19.08.2023 and has been incarcerated for more than three years. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The trial is moving at a snail's pace, as only five witnesses have been examined to date. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the trial. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶15

BAIL No. 25992 of 2026

¶16

¶17

This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 03.08.2026, five witnesses have been examined till 28.07.2026 and there are twenty two witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the period of incarceration of the applicant and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Vijan Pal @ Vijay Pal @ Shambhu , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶20

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

¶21

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶22

September 17, 2026 (Ravi Kant)

¶23

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

Vijan Pal @ Vijay Pal @ Shambhu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijan Pal @ Vijay Pal @ Shambhu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases