Allahabad High Court
VIKASH @ TILLARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The applicant is not entitled to bail as the material prosecution witnesses remain against him and the alleged fresh ground is insufficient.
Summary
Vikash @ Tillar applied for bail in a case involving offences under Sections 126(2), 352, 115(2), 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act. The applicant had already had two earlier bail applications rejected and had been in judicial custody for about thirteen months. He argued that two newly examined prosecution witnesses (PW‑4 and PW‑5) had turned hostile, that the earlier witnesses were unreliable, and that his prolonged detention violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The State contended that the hostile turn of PW‑4 and PW‑5 was not a fresh ground because the examinations occurred before the earlier rejection, that three material witnesses still supported the prosecution, and that the applicant’s criminal history was not explained. The Court held that the material prosecution evidence remained strong, the alleged fresh ground was insufficient, and the period of incarceration did not outweigh the gravity of the offences, consequently rejecting the bail application and directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the hostile turn of witnesses after an earlier bail rejection constitutes a fresh ground for granting bail
- Whether the applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 warrants bail
- Whether the applicant's criminal history and failure to produce related bail orders affect bail eligibility
- Whether the existing prosecution evidence justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- hostile witness
- speedy trial
- Article 21
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- Uttar Pradesh
- judicial custody
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33112 of 2026
Vikash @ Tillar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Yadav, Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 79 out of 291)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. IInd Supplementary affidavit filed today by the
learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anand
Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2025, under Sections 126(2), 352, 115(2),
103(1), 3(5), 61(2) of BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police
Station- Sardhana, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
4. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by
this Court vide orders dated 20.03.2026 and 05.08.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1658 of 2026 and 27101 of 2026, respectively.
5. As a new ground for bail, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail application vide order
dated 05.08.2026, two more prosecution witnesses, namely PW-4 and PW-5,
have been examined before the Trial Court. It is contended that both
witnesses resiled from their previous statements and failed to support the
prosecution story, prompting the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine them
after declaring them hostile. On this strength, it is argued that there is no
remote likelihood of the applicant's conviction in the present case.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and
PW-3 are unreliable. PW-1 is admittedly not an eye-witness to the
BAIL No. 33112 of 2026
2
occurrence, whereas PW-2 and PW-3 are merely related and chance
witnesses whose depositions do not inspire confidence. It is also urged that
the applicant has been languishing in judicial custody since 09.08.2025, and
this protracted incarceration of about thirteen months constitutes an
infraction of his fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is assured that if the applicant is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall strictly
cooperate with the trial.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the
bail application, pointing out that three material witnesses, namely, PW-1,
PW-2, and PW-3 have fully supported the prosecution case and actively
deposed against the applicant. It is further submitted that PW-4 and PW-5
were examined on 1.7.2026 and 6.7.2026 respectively, which dates visibly
predate the earlier rejection order passed by this Court on 5.8.2026.
Consequently, it is argued that their turning hostile does not constitute a
fresh ground subsequent to the earlier order, and the applicant is not entitled
to the discretionary relief of bail within a mere span of one month from the
previous rejection.
8. Learned AGA has also opposed the bail application, contending that the
criminal history attributed to the applicant has not been properly explained,
as the applicant has failed to append the relevant bail order of one of the
criminal cases with the affidavit filed in support of the current bail
application.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into active
consideration the fact that three material prosecution witnesses have clearly
deposed against the applicant, coupled with the fact that the trial is
progressing expeditiously with five witnesses already examined by July
2026, this Court is of the view that the period of incarceration of about
thirteen months does not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the
evidence on record. Looking into the merits, this Court does not find it a fit
case to release the applicant on bail.
10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
11. However, the Trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid case
expeditiously, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
BAIL No. 33112 of 2026
3
12. 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.
13. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the
Trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
September 16, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…