Allahabad High Court
DANISHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected; the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, accused under Section 302 IPC for allegedly throttling his son to death, filed a second bail application after being in custody for over four and a half years. He claimed innocence, argued that the FIR was delayed by fifteen hours, and contended that the informant’s testimony did not support the prosecution, invoking his Article 21 right to liberty. The State opposed, describing the case as open and shut, noting that seven witnesses had already been examined. The Court found no merit in the bail plea, emphasizing the lack of any reason to doubt the prosecution’s case and rejected the application. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial, citing Supreme Court precedents on speedy trial, and clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Section 302 IPC after prolonged pre‑trial detention of four years and six months.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged lack of corroboration by the informant justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 is violated by continued detention without speedy trial.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- Section 302 IPC
- murder
- delay in FIR
- Article 21
- speedy trial
- pre‑trial detention
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15082 of 2025
Danish
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sadaful Islam Jafri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 39 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sadaful Islam Jafri, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S.
Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State / learned State Law Officer and perused
the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 489 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Syana, District
Bulandshahar, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The
first one was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 20.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3982 of
2022.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have put his son to
death by throttling on 20.8.2021 at about 5.00 am.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The informant was examined in the trial court and she has not
supported the prosecution story, as such, there is no likelihood of conviction
of the applicant.
BAIL No. 15082 of 2025
2
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, it is the
period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in
jail since 21.8.2021 and about four years and six months have passed since
his incarceration. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India stand violated as there is no likelihood of early
conclusion of trial in near future. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that it is an open and shut case. The cause of asphyxia as a
result of throttling and applicant has put his son to death and there was no
occasion for the informant to falsely implicate the applicant. As per the
status report dated, 10.3.2026, already seven witnesses have been examined.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that there was no occasion for the informant to falsely implicate the
applicant of having put to death his own son, 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.
10. 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
impediment.
11. 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
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…