Dismissed¶14

Ahmad Hasan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026BAIL/9011/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail — second bail application — Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act — Case Crime No.0244 of 2023, P.S. Azeem Nagar, District Rampur — trial at logical end, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement recorded — bail rejected as devoid of merits — direction for expeditious trial — Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 — Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702 — first bail rejected 12.08.2025 in Bail No.27329 of 2024 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad — Krishan Pahal, J. — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9011 of 2026, decided March 19, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; the only operative direction is that the trial court decide the pending case expeditiously, subject to no legal impediment. ¶14

Ahmad Hasan vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; the only operative direction is that the trial court decide the pending case expeditiously, subject to no legal impediment.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ahmad Hasan is entitled to bail in Case Crime No.0244 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

In this second bail application (the first having been rejected on 12.08.2025), since the trial is almost at its logical end and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded, it is not a fit case for grant of bail; the bail application is devoid of merits and is rejected.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed to decide the pending case expeditiously, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.) rejected the second bail application of Ahmad Hasan in Case Crime No.0244 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur. As the trial was almost at its logical end — the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. having already been recorded — the Court held it was not a fit case for grant of bail and found the application devoid of merits. The first bail application had been rejected vide order dated 12.08.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27329 of 2024. Relying on Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, the trial court was directed to decide the case expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9011 of 2026

Ahmad Hasan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

Court No. - 66

¶8

(Sr. No.3 out of 116)

¶9

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶10

List has been revised.

¶11

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27329 of 2024.

¶13

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0244 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is almost at its logical end, as the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶15

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal

¶16

BAIL No. 9011 of 2026

¶17

¶18

impediment.

¶19

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.

¶20

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶21

March 19, 2026

¶22

(Ravi Kant)

¶23

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

Ahmad Hasan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmad Hasan 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

Akshay Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Bata @ Harsh Tomar Vs State of U.P.

Nitesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitin Bata @ Harsh Tomar vs State of U.P.

Santosh Sonkar vs State of U.P.