Allahabad High Court
JAILAL RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the undue delay in trial, not caused by the accused, violated his right to speedy trial, warranting the grant of bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Summary
The High Court considered a third bail application filed by Jailal Rajbhar, who has been in custody since July 2019 for alleged offences under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. The applicant argued that the trial had been delayed for over seven years, with only six of ten witnesses examined, and that the delay was not his fault, violating his right to a speedy trial. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the fact that earlier bail applications had been rejected. The Court examined the trial record, noted the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses, and observed that the accused had no prior criminal history. Concluding that the prolonged detention infringed the accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial, the Court granted bail with standard conditions, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- The accused's right to a speedy trial has been violated, justifying bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences (IPC 302 and 498-A) and the fact that this is a third bail application preclude granting bail.
- Whether the delay in trial is attributable to the prosecution and not the accused.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 498-A
Subjects
- bail
- right to speedy trial
- under-trial detention
- IPC 302
- IPC 498-A
- criminal procedure
- repeat bail application
- no prior criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16649 of 2026
Jailal Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandan Yadav, Dipanshu Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. This is third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier
two bail applications have been dismissed by Hon. Krishan Pahal, J. but as
His Lordship has released the instant third bail application and this Bench is
dealing with such type of cases, therefore, the instant third bail application
has been listed today before this Bench.
2. Heard Sri Dipanshu Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 413 of 2019, under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the
court below.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however this is third bail
application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail
applications have been dismissed after considering the fact that he is
husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but in the
present matter, applicant is in jail since 10.7.2019 i.e. for last more than
seven years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.
5. He further submitted that in the charge sheet there are total ten witnesses
and till date only six could be examined and prosecution witnesses inspite of
the repeated summons are not appearing before the trial court and therefore,
trial is being lingered without any fault of the applicant.
6. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of
an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on
BAIL No. 16649 of 2026
2
bail. He further submitted that considering the long incarceration of more
than seven years of the applicant, it cannot be said that his fundamental right
of speedy trial has not been violated.
7. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having
no previous criminal history.
8. He further submitted that therefore, considering the long incarceration of
the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail.
9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that
this is third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier
two bail applications have been dismissed after considering the fact that he
is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but could
not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more
than seven years and there is no allegation that he is delaying the trial in any
manner.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. However, this is third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and
his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court after considering the fact that he is husband of the
deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but in the present matter,
applicant is in jail since 10.7.2019 i.e. for last more than seven years and till
date trial of the case is still pending.
12. From the report of the court concerned dated 6.6.2026 it reflects, till that
date out of ten witnesses only six could be examined and constable-Anil
Yadav and Dr. D. K. Chauhan inspite of repeated summons were not
appearing before the trial court. From the report of the court concerned it
could not be reflected that applicant is responsible for delay in
trial. Considering the report of the court concerned it cannot be said that
fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.
13. The law is settled that an under-trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail
for ever without trial and on the ground of long incarceration even in serious
cases, an accused can be released on bail.
14. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is having no previous
criminal history.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
BAIL No. 16649 of 2026
3
above, in view of this Court, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant-Jailal Rajbhar, 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:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(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 dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
18. 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.
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.
September 16, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…