Allahabad High Court
DHAKAN LALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied because the trial was at its conclusive stage and Supreme Court precedent precludes granting bail after charge framing.
Summary
The applicant, Dhakan Lal, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 506 of 2023) involving IPC sections 302, 504 and 34. He claimed innocence and argued that he had already been in custody for over two years, assuring the court he would not misuse liberty. The State opposed bail, noting that the trial was at its conclusive stage with five prosecution witnesses already examined and that the applicant’s counsel had not cross‑examined the eyewitness. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in X vs State of Rajasthan (2024 INSC 909), the court held that bail is ordinarily unavailable once trial has progressed beyond charge framing. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected, with a direction that the pending trial be expedited. The observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused when the trial is at its conclusive stage and witnesses have been examined.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention and the applicant’s claim of innocence justify bail despite the progress of the trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 504
Subjects
- bail
- IPC sections 302, 504, 34
- trial stage
- pre‑trial detention
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31287 of 2025
Dhakan Lal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raju Kanaujia, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,
Sarvesh Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Pal, G.A., Rajesh Kumar,
Udayveer Singh
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 77 out of 150)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Raju Malviya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chandra Pal, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail
in Case Crime No. 506 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504, 34 of IPC, Police
Station- Bithrichainpur, District - Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing
to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. It is next contended that the
applicant is in jail since 18.12.2023, as such, the period of incarceration is
more than two years and three months. In case, the applicant is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is
the named accused in the FIR. The trial is already in progress and five
prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is also pointed out that the
counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine the eye-witness, and
therefore, the opportunity for cross-examination has been closed.
BAIL No. 31287 of 2025
2
6. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in
compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court
concerned on 10.12.2025. As per the said report, five witnesses have been
examined to date, as such, the trial is at its conclusive end.
7. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in
2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be
allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in
conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally
granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be
granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of
Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its
conclusive end as already five witnesses have been examined as well as the
conduct of the applicant's counsel before Trial Court, I do not find it a fit
case to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the
recent judgements 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.
11. 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.
March 18, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…