Allahabad High Court
SUMIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail because of his prior escape, extensive criminal history, and the likelihood of further absconding, distinguishing his case from co‑accused who were released on bail.
Summary
The applicant, Sumit Kumar, was charged in a 2015 FIR for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, alleging indiscriminate firing that caused a death. He was arrested at the scene along with co‑accused but escaped custody in 2018 and was re‑arrested only in September 2025, having spent a total of five years in jail. The applicant sought bail, arguing that co‑accused who were similarly charged had been released on bail and that the trial was progressing slowly. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the applicant's escape, his extensive criminal history including two cases under Section 307 IPC, and the risk of further absconding. The court examined the distinctions between the applicant and the co‑accused, noting the applicant’s prior escape and shorter period of incarceration, and concluded that these factors outweighed the arguments for bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the court directed the trial to be concluded within one year.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite having escaped custody and a history of absconding.
- Whether the applicant's case is distinguishable from co‑accused who were granted bail.
- Whether the risk of further absconding justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the delay in trial and limited witness examination affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307
Subjects
- bail
- absconding
- criminal history
- trial delay
- IPC sections 147
- IPC sections 148
- IPC sections 149
- IPC section 302
- IPC section 307
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28654 of 2026
Sumit Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Irshad Mohamad, Noor Mohammad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Giri, Jitendra Kumar Shishodia,
Swati Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the State and informant and supplementary
affidavit filed by the applicant are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra
Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for informant and Sri Ashotush Singh,
learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302
IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad during pendency of the
trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was
lodged on 23.02.2015 against applicant and four others and two unknown
persons and according to the FIR applicant and his associates opened
indiscriminate firing due to which one person died and applicant and co-
accused Pankaj @ Ravindra were arrested at spot but entire allegations
leveled against applicant are totally false.
5. He further submits, co-accused Ramveer and Nempal were also made
accused in the FIR and charge-sheet was also filed against them along with
applicant and co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra but well before they have been
released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and considering the
fact that only general role in the FIR has been assigned to all the accused
case of applicant is at par with them.
BAIL No. 28654 of 2026
2
6. He further submits, even co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra who was arrested
at spot along with applicant has also been released on bail by this Court
considering his long incarceration of more than a decade and his bail order
has been annexed at page-63 of the paper-book and case of applicant is also
at par with him.
7. He further submits, however, as per prosecution, while applicant was in
custody then he escaped in the year 2018 and after seven years he could only
be arrested on 24.09.2025 but before absconding he remained in jail for three
years and even since his arrest one year has been passed.
8. He further submits, trial of the case is moving languid pace and till date
out of 21 witnesses only 9 could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of
its early disposal.
9. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of nine other cases but his criminal history has been
explained and all the cases were old one and except two cases which were of
section 307 IPC all the other cases were of minor nature and in all these
cases applicant is on bail.
10. He further submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant
may be enlarged on bail.
11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submit, however, co-accused Ramveer,
Nempal and Pankaj @ Ravindra have been released on bail but case of
applicant is distinguishable from them as applicant during custody manage
to escape and after seven years he could only be arrested.
12. They further submit, even co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra who was
though apprehended at spot along with applicant was enlarged on bail on the
ground that he was in jail for last more than 11 years and till date trial could
not be concluded but applicant suffered total incarceration of only five years
and therefore his case is distinguishable from co-accused Pankaj on the
ground of period of incarceration.
13. They further submit, even applicant is having criminal history of as
many as nine cases including two cases of Section 307 IPC and considering
the criminal history of the applicant and his previous conduct there is every
possibility that if he will be released on bail then he will again abscond.
BAIL No. 28654 of 2026
3
14. They further submit, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the
instant bail application may be dismissed.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
16. Applicant was named in the FIR which was lodged in the year 2015
along with four others and according to the FIR he along with other named
accused and two unknown associates open indiscriminate firing due to which
deceased sustained injuries and died and even applicant and co-accused
Pankaj @Ravindra were arrested at spot.
17. Further, however, it reflects, co-accused Ramveer, Nempal have been
released on bail but considering the fact that applicant was arrested at spot
along with co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra it appears, his case is
distinguishable from them.
18. Further, however, co-accused Pankaj @ Ravindra who was also
allegedly apprehended at spot along with applicant has also been released on
bail but considering his bail order, which has been annexed at page-63 of the
paper-book it reflects, considering his long incarceration of more than 11
years he was released on bail. In the present matter it reflects, applicant was
apprehended at spot on 23.02.2015 and he remained in custody till 2018 and
thereafter he managed to escape from the jail and thereafter after seven years
he could only be arrested on 24.09.2025 and therefore it reflects, he
remained in jail in the present matter only for total five years and therefore
case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of Pankaj @ Ravindra,
who was in custody for more than a decade.
19. Further, case of applicant is also distinguishable from the case of other
accused as he escaped while he was in jail and even he could only be
arrested after seven years. Further, even it reflects, he is having criminal
history of nine other cases including two cases of Section 307 IPC.
20. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case it reflects,
there is every possibility that if applicant will be released on bail then he
may again abscond.
21. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
BAIL No. 28654 of 2026
4
22. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is rejected.
23. 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.
24. However, considering the fact that applicant has already suffered
incarceration of about four years and even after arrest he is in jail for last one
year, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of
one year from the date of production/knowledge of this order in accordance
with law, if there is no legal impediment.
25. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate the
order passed today by this Court to the District Judge concerned for
compliance within 48 hours.
September 28, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…