Allahabad High Court
INDERRAJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the eight‑year detention without a speedy trial violated the accused’s fundamental right, necessitating the grant of bail despite the seriousness of the murder charge.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Inderraj, the sole accused in a murder case (Criminal No. 937 of 2018) under Section 302 IPC. The applicant, who is deaf and dumb, had been in custody since October 2018, amounting to nearly eight years, with only six of fifteen witnesses examined, indicating a sluggish trial. The counsel argued that the prolonged detention violated the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, and that the applicant had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, relying on the eye‑witness testimony of the deceased’s daughter, but did not dispute the trial delay or the applicant’s disability. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that even in serious offences, a breach of the right to speedy trial warrants bail, and consequently granted the bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- The right to speedy trial under Article 21 and its impact on bail in a murder case
- Whether the accused’s disability and lack of prior criminal record justify bail
- Whether the delay in trial (only 6 of 15 witnesses examined) warrants bail
- Whether bail can be granted without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- murder
- bail
- right to speedy trial
- disability
- Section 302 IPC
- fundamental rights
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34439 of 2026
Inderraj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Irshad Mohamad, Noor Mohammad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Irshad Mohammad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.937 of 2018,
under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Sector 39, District Gautam Budh
Nagar during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is
sole accused and according to the prosecution he committed the murder
of the deceaed, i.e., mother of the informant but applicant is deaf and
dumb person and in the present matter he is in jail since 16.10.2018, i.e.,
for almost eight years.
4. He further submits that in the charge sheet there are 15 witnesses and
till date only six witnesses could be examined and, therefore, trial of the
case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early
disposal.
5. He further submits that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of
an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released
on bail and considering long detention of applicant of about eight years it
cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been
infringed.
6. He further argued that applicant is not having any previous criminal
history.
BAIL No. 34439 of 2026
2
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that
applicant is the sole acused and daughter of the deceased was the eye
witness and she categorically stated that applicant committed her murder
but he could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in
jail since 16.10.2018, i..e, for almost eight years and till date out of 15
witnesses only six witnesses could be examined.
8. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is deaf
and dumb person and he is not having any other criminal history and
there is no evidence that he is delaying the trial in any manner.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
10. However, applicant is sole accused and eye witness, i.e., daughter of
the deceased also stated that he committed the murder of her mother but it
reflects that in the present mater applicant is in jail since 16.10.2018, i.e.,
for almost eight years and till date out of 15 witnesses only six witnesses
could be examined and, therefore, it appears that trial of the case is
moving with sluggish pace and there is no likelihood of its early
disposal.
11. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right
of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be
released on bail and considering the fact that applicant is detained in jail
for almost eight years, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of
speedy trial has not been infringed particularly considering the fact that
there is no allegation that applicant is delaying the trial in any manner.
12. The Apex Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of
Maharashtra , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810 while considering the SLP
moved by accused, who was in jail for the last four years in case of
murder observed in paragraph-6 as:
"6.We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of
murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime
may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court may consider the
plea for bail appropriately."
13. Further, even it reflects that applicant is deaf and dumb person and he
BAIL No. 34439 of 2026
3
is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant-Inderraj 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.
18. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 28, 2026
SKM
Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…