Allahabad High Court
PRAKASHIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
Since the proceedings were initially stayed and no process was ever served on the accused, he is entitled to bail notwithstanding the pending trial.
Summary
The accused, Prakashi, applied for bail in a 1995 case under IPC sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, claiming false implication. He argued that the trial was stayed under a Section 482 application in 1997, the stay was later vacated in 2010, and no process was ever served on him. He surrendered in May 2026, noting he has one acquitted case and another pending bail. The court, noting the initial stay and lack of service of process, held that the accused is entitled to bail without addressing the merits. Accordingly, bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties, with reference to recent Supreme Court bail jurisprudence.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail when the trial was initially stayed and no process was served on him.
- Whether the vacating of the earlier stay order affects the bail eligibility.
- Whether the existence of other criminal cases influences the grant of bail in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- stay of proceedings
- IPC sections 147-149, 307
- CrPC Section 482
- Supreme Court bail jurisprudence
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33845 of 2026
Prakashi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing additional documents
in support of the bail application, the same is taken on record.
1A. Heard Sri Gaurav Singh Chauhan, learned advocate, holding the
brief, appears for the accused applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Prakashi to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 340A of 1995, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC, P.S.- Majhola, District- Moradabad
during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the
accused applicant was falsely implicated in FIR lodged in the year 1995.
He has approached this Court in an Application U/S 482 No.3782 of 1997
(Prakashi & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another) wherein this Court in
order dated 17.6.1997 has passed the interim order staying the
proceedings, which is mentioned in order dated 17.11.2018 of the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate annexed at page No.32 of the
supplementary affidavit. It is further contended that on 19.8.2010 the
interim order was vacated. The accused applicant was not aware about
these proceedings and also did not appear before the trial court as it was
stayed. It is further contended that no processes have ever been served on
the accused applicant. It is on the subsequent date, the accused applicant
came to know about the pendency of the case and surrendered himself
before the court on 19.5.2026. The applicant has two cases criminal
BAIL No. 33845 of 2026
2
history, wherein one case, he has been acquitted and in one case, he is on
bail, the bail order could not procured being old case. He seeks
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that initially, there was stay of the proceedings during
which period, the accused applicant could not appear before the trial court
and that there is no substance that the processes have ever been served on
the accused applicant, the accused applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 30, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…