Allahabad High Court
ADITYA BHARTIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court rejected the applicant's second bail application.
Summary
The applicant, Aditya Bhartiya, sought bail in a murder case (Section‑103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023, equivalent to IPC s.302) after the charge was framed on 27‑01‑2026. This was his second bail application; the first was rejected because CCTV footage placed him with the deceased and a scarf used in the strangulation was recovered from him. The applicant argued that no witness had been examined and that procedural lapses, including non‑bailable warrants issued by the trial court, warranted bail. The court examined the trial court's alleged negligence, noting that the trial judge mistakenly assumed the applicant had been released on bail and issued warrants without verifying his custody status. However, the court found that the applicant repeatedly failed to appear before the trial court, causing delays, and that the offence was serious, so no grounds for bail existed. Consequently, the second bail application was rejected and the matter was referred to the Administrative Judge for inquiry into the trial judge's conduct.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a serious murder case despite prior rejection and alleged procedural irregularities.
- Whether the trial court's alleged negligence in issuing non‑bailable warrants and presuming bail affects the applicant's right to bail.
- Whether the applicant's own failure to appear before the trial court and causing trial delays bars the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- non‑bailable warrant
- trial delay
- judicial negligence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30889 of 2026
Aditya Bhartiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Sampoorna Nand
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri DPS Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 413 of 2025, Under Section-
103 (1) of B.N.S., 2023 (corresponding Section 302 of I.P.C.) at
Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the
trial.
3. This is a second bail application.
4. First bail application no.41908 of 2025 was rejected by this court
on 06.04.2026 on the ground that CCTV footage shows that
deceased was lastly seen in the company of the applicant while both
of them were going on a cycle and immediately thereafter, the
applicant returned back alone and subsequently, the scarf used to
strangulate the deceased was also recovered on pointing out of the
applicant.
5. This matter was lastly heard on 02.09.2026. On that date, learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that till date not a single
witness has been examined, though the charge was framed on
27.01.2026.
6. On that date, learned AGA on the basis of order sheet had
submitted that though the summon was issued on 17.03.2026,
19.04.2026, 12.05.2026 and 24.06.2026 but the applicant was not
produced before the court by the jail authorities, therefore, this Court
vide order dated 02.09.2026 directed the Senior Superintendent,
BAIL No. 30889 of 2026
2
District-Jail, Naini, Prayagraj to appear personally and explain the
reason.
7. In pursuance of the order dated 02.09.2026, the Senior
Superintendent, District-Jail, Naini, Prayagraj appeared before this
Court and filed personal affidavit wherein it is clearly mentioned that
though the court has recorded in the order sheet that on 17.03.2026,
09.04.2026, 12.05.2026 and 24.06.2026, the applicant did not
appear, no summon was sent to the jail authorities by the concerned
trial court to produce the applicant before the trial court.
8. Considering the aforesaid arguments of the Senior Superintendent,
District-Jail, Naini, Prayagraj, this Court vide order dated 22.09.2026
directed the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.9,
Prayagraj to submit explanation.
9. In pursuance of the order dated 22.09.2026, Sri Rajnish Kumar
Misr, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Prayagraj has
submitted an explanation. In his explanation, learned trial Judge has
mentioned that the Court was in the impression that applicant has
been released on bail, therefore, summon was not issued to the jail
authorities and this fact was also not communicated by the learned
counsel for the applicant before the trial court that applicant is still in
jail. It is also clear from the order sheet that the trial court without
verifying the record also issued NBW against the present applicant on
22.05.2026 and 24.06.2026.
10. The above fact shows sheer negligence on the part of the
concerned trial court who himself presumed that applicant has been
released on bail without looking into the record and kept on posting
the matter on different dates and also issued non-bailable warrant
against the applicant, though applicant was already confined in jail
and there was nothing on record that applicant has been released on
bail.
11. Therefore, this order be placed before the Administrative Judge,
Prayagraj for considering whether any enquiry is required against the
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Prayagraj for the
above negligence.
12. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the charge in the
present case has been framed on 27.01.2026 and on most of the
BAIL No. 30889 of 2026
3
occasions, the applicant became absent before the trial court,
therefore, prima facie there is no fault on the part of trial court in
concluding the trial. No other ground has been raised by the
applicant's counsel except for the delay in the conclusion of trial but
the offence is serious in nature, merely some delay has been caused
but on most of the occasions, it is the applicant who is responsible for
causing delay in trial by not appearing before the trial court and
application for adjournment has been moved through his counsel,
therefore, no case for bail is made out, at this stage.
13. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is
rejected.
14. Office is directed to place this order before the Hon'ble
Administrative Judge, Prayagraj, considering the negligence on the
part of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9,
Prayagraj.
October 1, 2026
S.C.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…