Allahabad High Court
SAGEERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected as the applicant is not entitled to bail in the murder case.
Summary
The applicant, charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Arms Act for the murder of his wife, sought bail, claiming innocence and alleging a delayed FIR and violation of his Article 21 rights after three years of incarceration. The applicant argued that the post‑mortem indicated a death duration of three to four days, suggesting a longer time before the body was discovered. The State contested this, stating the death occurred within eight hours, citing rigor mortis and an eye‑witness who saw the applicant commit a brutal murder inside his house, and argued the applicant was not entitled to bail. The court, after considering the eye‑witness testimony and the circumstances of the homicide, found the bail application devoid of merit and rejected it, directing the trial to proceed expeditiously. The judgment also clarified that its observations are limited to the bail application and do not affect the trial's merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged with murder under Section 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Arms Act
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged violation of Article 21 rights justify bail
- Whether the post‑mortem findings and eye‑witness testimony negate the applicant's claim of innocence
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Section 302 IPC
- Arms Act
- eye‑witness
- delay
- Article 21
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27037 of 2025
Sageer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Irteqa
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 56 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the
applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Mohd Irteqa learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.M. Yadav,
learned A.G.A. 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. 123 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station
Rorawar, District Aligarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that even the post-mortem
examination of the deceased was conducted on 27.3.2023 at about 1.40 pm
and the duration of the death is stated to be 3-4 days. The applicant is in jail
since 27.3.2023 as such, period of incarceration is about three years. 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.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that the said averment that the duration of death is 3-4 days is
BAIL No. 27037 of 2025
2
wrong. Actually, it is 3/4th day implying it to be eight hours. Even otherwise
rigor mortis on the body of the deceased was present which also indicates
the death within 24 hours. The applicant is the husband of the deceased
person and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the
applicant only and has sustained eleven injuries on her body. It is a brutal
murder of his own wife by the applicant. There is a statement of the eye-
witness Ruksana, who had witnessed the incident, as such, the applicant is
not entitled for bail.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that there is eye-witness of the incident and the deceased has expired
within the precincts of the house of the applicant, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 18, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…