Allahabad High Court

GUDDU URF SATYA PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

Bail was denied as the trial was at its conclusive stage and sufficient evidence linked the applicant to the offence.

Summary

The applicant, Guddu Urf Satya Prakash, filed a bail application in a case involving offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act, claiming he was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, citing a witness statement that the applicant was the last person seen with the deceased and noting that six witnesses had already been examined. The Court referred to a recent Supreme Court decision (X vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 INSC 909) which holds that bail is generally not granted after the charge has been framed and the trial is nearing conclusion. Considering the evidence linking the applicant to the crime and the advanced stage of the trial, the Court found no merit in the bail plea. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction that the trial be expedited, and the Court clarified that its observations do not affect the merits of the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted when the trial is at its conclusive stage with multiple witnesses already examined.
Whether the applicant's claim of false implication and lack of naming in the FIR is sufficient to merit bail.
Whether the witness statement identifying the applicant as the last person seen with the deceased precludes bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 137(2), 238, 3(5), 70(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 5G, 6

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
trial stage
POCSO Act
false implication
witness testimony
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12833 of 2025

Guddu Urf Satya Prakash
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kalamuddin, M. A. Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, G.A., Hind
Pratap Lal, Yasmeen Jahan

Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.37 out of 116)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

2. Heard Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.P. Patel,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.196 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 238, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and
Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi with
the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was not
named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis
of suspicion only subsequently as an afterthought. There is no criminal
history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.9.2024 and he is
ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
application on the ground that there is statement of one Pradeep Bind, who is
stated to have last seen the applicant alongwith the deceased and the dead
body of the deceased was recovered thereupon. It is further stated that
already six witnesses have been examined, as such, the applicant is not
entitled to bail.
BAIL No. 12833 of 2025
2

6. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court.
As per the said status report dated 4.2.2026, six witnesses have already been
examined.

7. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in
2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be
allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in
conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally
granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be
granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that there is evidence of last seen against the applicant coupled by
the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end as already six witnesses have
been examined, 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.

9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously 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 impediment.

10. 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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…