Amarnath Sharma Alias Babbu Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45892 of 2025

Amarnath Sharma Alias Babbu

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amit Kumar Tiwari, Niraj Dwivedi	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ashish Kumar Gupta, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

2.Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Niraj Kumar Dwivedi. learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for informant and Sri Satrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2020 arising of Case Crime No. 370 of 2019, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed by this Court, one by Coordinate Bench of this Court and one by this Bench after considering merit of the case and both the previous orders passed by this Court have been annexed along with the instant bail application but applicant is pressing this third bail application on the ground that he is in jail in the present matter since 7.12.2019 i.e. for last almost 6-1/2 years and till date out of 33 witnesses in the charge sheet only two could be examined and even till date testimony of P.W.2 could not be concluded.

¶11

He next submits, the law is settled that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious matters like murder, he can be released on bail.

¶12

He next submits, from the entire material available on record, including order sheet of the case and even from the report submitted by the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant is sole responsible for

¶13

BAIL No. 45892 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

delay in trial and thus it cannot be said that his right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

¶16

He next submits, considering the fact that till date out of 33 witnesses not even testimony of P.W. 2 could be concluded, it is apparent there is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial.

¶17

He further argued, therefore, considering the long incarceration of the applicant of more than six years, coupled with the fact that applicant is not having any other criminal history, he may be released on bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed after considering the fact that he appears to be principal accused who caused injuries to the deceased but they could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 7.12.2019 i.e. for almost 6-1/2 years and till date out of 33 witnesses only one witness could be examined and even testimony of P.W. 2 could not be concluded.

¶19

They, however, further submitted that from record it reflects due to the time sought by learned counsel for the accused person trial is being delayed.

¶20

They further submit, however, right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused but considering the fact that applicant is facing trial of murder in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail merely on the basis of his long incarceration of six years.

¶21

They further submit, therefore, the instant bail application may be dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed on merit.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant pressed the instant third bail application on the sole ground that in the present matter applicant is detained in jail since December, 2019 i.e for almost 6-1/2 years and till date out of 33 witnesses in the charge sheet only one could be examined and testimony of P.W. 2 has not been concluded and, therefore, right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

¶25

The law is settled if fundamental right of speedy trial of accused is infringed then even in serious cases like murder he can be released on bail.

¶26

BAIL No. 45892 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

From the report of court concerned, however, it reflects on number of occasions counsel for the applicant and other accused sought time for cross examination but from the report it also reflects, according to the court concerned, on number of dates fixed for evidence witnesses did not appear and, therefore, it reflects prosecution witnesses are also responsible in delay in trial and considering the entire material available on record it cannot be said that right of the speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed.

¶29

Recently, Apex Court in case of Sahil Manoj Machare vs. The State of Maharashtra, S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026 had occasion to consider the aspect of right of speedy trial of an accused in case of murder and on 5.4.2026 the Apex court was pleased to enlarge the accused of that case on bail after considering the fact that he was in jail for almost four years and it appears his right of speedy trial has been violated. The Apex Court while enlarging the accused on bail in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 observed as under:

¶30

"6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.

¶31

7. Here is a case wherein past almost four years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined."

¶32

Further, it reflects applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, as it appears applicant is in jail for last almost 6-1/2 years and his right of speedy trial has been violated, therefore, the view expressed by Apex Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare (supra), in view of this Court, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶34

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

¶35

Let the applicant - Amarnath Sharma @ Babbu 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:-

¶36

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

¶37

(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

¶38

BAIL No. 45892 of 2025

¶39

4

¶40

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Kumar Manish

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amarnath Sharma Alias Babbu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Sharma Alias Babbu 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

Rajendra Singh Gurjar Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Angad Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sameena vs State of U.P.