Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.651 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶13

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed the murder of the deceased in the night of 06.11.2019 at about 9:40 p.m. The said matter came to the knowledge of the owner of the hotel, who rushed the deceased to hospital in an ambulance, where the deceased was declared as brought dead.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR is delayed by more than 12 hours and there is no explanation for the said delay caused. The informant is not an eyewitness to the incident, and so is the case of the owner of the hotel. There is no ocular account of the incident; as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. Subsequently one witness, namely Subhan, has been roped in by the prosecution, who is stated to have witness the incident, but to date the said Subhan has not turned up in court as he has not been examined as prosecution witness. Only four witnesses have been

¶15

BAIL No. 45615 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

examined by the prosecution, namely PW-1 (Sanjeev), PW-2 (Constable Ajay Pal), PW-3 (Dr. Vipul Kushwaha), and PW-4 (S.I. Ravindra Singh). The trial is moving at a snail’s pace and there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is in jail since 08.11.2019, as such, the period of incarceration is about six years and five months. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

¶20

This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 02.02.2026, four witnesses have been examined to date.

¶21

Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645 , the Supreme Court has observed:

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects:

¶23

(i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years;

¶24

(ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and

¶25

(iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.

¶26

Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of

¶27

BAIL No. 45615 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

India.

¶30

Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

¶31

In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240 . We quote:

¶32

"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:

¶33

"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."

¶34

The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 311; A Convict Prisoner v. State 1993 Cri LJ 3242; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695 .

¶35

In the money laundering case of V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739 , the accused was incarcerated for more than 15 months as such the Supreme Court declared "inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together" .

¶36

In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 , prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the

¶37

BAIL No. 45615 of 2025

¶38

4

¶39

attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act.

¶40

The Supreme Court in its latest judgement passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.10455-10456/2025 Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reiterated that issues of personal liberty must be addressed with utmost speed by Courts. The accused had already been incarcerated for more than three and a half years, in the instant and connected matters. Releasing accused on bail due to excessive delays by the High Court in deciding his application also took into account lengthy pre-trial confinement, emphasizing speedy decision-making for matters of personal liberty.

¶41

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, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶42

Let the applicant- Sanjay , 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.

¶43

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

¶44

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶45

March 18, 2026

¶46

(Ravi Kant)

¶47

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

Sanjay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Ajay Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Ramlakhan vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra vs State of U.P.

Ramesh vs State of U.P.

Ajit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashwani Singh @ Nikhil Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others