Allahabad High Court

ABID AHMAD ALIAS SHAKILversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been violated and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or witness intimidation exists.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Abid Ahmad (alias Shakil), who had been in custody since September 2017 for an alleged murder under Section 304 IPC. The applicant argued that the trial had been unduly delayed, with only three of ten prosecution witnesses examined, violating his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay caused by the applicant. The court found that the prolonged incarceration without justification infringed the constitutional right to speedy trial and that no reasonable apprehension existed against granting bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions to appear in court and not interfere with evidence or witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charge (Section 304 IPC) and prolonged pre‑trial detention.
Whether the delay in trial violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Indian Penal Code — s. 304

Subjects

bail
right to speedy trial
Article 21
Section 304 IPC
Section 483 CrPC
pre‑trial detention
witness protection

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18685 of 2025

Abid Ahmad Alias Shakil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nagendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. This is second bail application. The first bail application was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2019.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj
Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent and
perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Session
Case No. 1501 of 2022 (State Vs. Abid Ahmad @ Shakil), arising
out of Case Crime No. 383 of 2017, under Section 304 IPC,
Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun during the pendency of
trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is in jail
since 01.09.2017. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and
has always cooperated with the investigation, and has attended
the trial. The applicant never influenced the witnesses nor
tempered with the evidence. Undue delay caused by the
prosecution witnesses has led to pro-longed incarceration of the
applicant. The trial is moving at snail's pace and shows no sign
of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the
delay in conclusion of trial. Charge sheet has been filed against
BAIL No. 18685 of 2025
2

the applicant on 13.12.2017. Charges were framed against the
applicant on 27.01.2023. Till date, only three prosecution
witnesses have been examined. Prosecution witnesses are
deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration
of the applicant. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could
not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the
record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant is in jail
for more than eight years and eight months. As per the status
report of the trial judge, the prosecution proposes to examine
ten witnesses to bring home the charges. Charge sheet has been
filed on 13.12.2017 and charges were framed against the
applicant on 27.01.2023. The prosecution proposes to examine
ten witnesses to bring home charges. As per the status report,
till date only three prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses have led to
pro-longed incarceration of the applicant. Even the prosecution
could not bring on record any material, which would show that
the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of
the present applicant. Thus, the 'right of speedy trial' of the
applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India is violated.

7. Consequently, keeping in view the above stated facts and
more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to
the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail,
would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or
intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the
case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

8. Let the applicant Abid Ahmad @ Shakil involved in the
BAIL No. 18685 of 2025
3

aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions
that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation
application before this Court.

May 6, 2026
Lbm/-

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…