Allahabad High Court
AJEET SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJ BEER SINGH
Holding
The court allowed the second bail application and granted bail to the accused with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Ajeet Singh, who is accused under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his uncle. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, citing lack of eyewitnesses and alleging that the recovered weapon was found three hours after the incident, making his presence at the scene unlikely. The court noted that the applicant had already spent more than six and a half years in custody and that the trial was still pending, with material witnesses already examined. While the first bail application had been rejected, the court found that the prolonged pre‑trial detention and the absence of a strong case for continued detention warranted relief. Consequently, the court granted bail with a personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions to prevent evidence tampering or witness intimidation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Section 302 IPC after prolonged pre‑trial detention
- Whether the claim of false implication and lack of eyewitnesses affect the bail decision
- Whether a previously rejected bail application can be revisited in light of changed circumstances
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- Section 302 IPC
- murder
- false implication
- prolonged pre‑trial detention
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10947 of
2025
Ajeet Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhay Pratap Singh,
Amarjeet Choudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 90
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the
applicant, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
3. The present second bail application has been filed by the
applicant in Case Crime No. 473 of 2019, under Section - 302
I.P.C., Police Station - Auraiya, District - Auraiya, with the
prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is nephew of
deceased and after his death he was not going to inherit his
property. The allegation that applicant has committed murder of
deceased, is wholly false. There is no eye witness of the alleged
incident. Though the first information report was lodged by the
grand mother of applicant but she is not an eye witness of the
incident. Alleged recovery of 'farsa' shown from appellant, is
wholly false. It was submitted that alleged recovery of 'farsa' was
shown recovered after three hours of the incident and it is not
BAIL No. 10947 of 2025
2
probable that after three hours of the incident applicant would
have been present near the spot. The prosecution version that
there was some dispute of property or that deceased was
murdered to grab his property, is false and baseless.
5. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant has
been rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 and since
then a period of more than two years has been passed but trial has
not been concluded so far. It was submitted that the material
witnesses have already been examined and thus, there is no
possibility of tampering with evidence. Applicant is languishing
in jail since 13.07.2019 and thus, he has already undergone
custody of more than six and a half years. Lastly, it was
submitted that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted
that applicant has committed murder of his uncle, who was
unmarried, to grab his property. After incident, applicant was
apprehended and blood stained 'farsa' was recovered from him.
The first bail application of applicant has already been rejected. It
was submitted that no case for bail is made out.
7. Considering submissions of learned counsel for parties and all
attending facts, particularly the fact that applicant has already
undergone custody of more than six and a half years and trial of
the case is likely to take sufficient long time, without expressing
any opinion on merits, it would be just and proper to release the
applicant on bail. Hence, the present second bail application is
hereby allowed.
8. Let the applicant - Ajeet Singh, involved in the aforesaid
crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two
heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of
BAIL No. 10947 of 2025
3
court concerned subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not try to contact, threat or otherwise
influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.
9. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial court
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance
with law.
April 27, 2026
S Rawat
(Raj Beer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHOBHIT RAWAT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…