Allahabad High Court
PINTU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
Even in serious offences such as murder, a violation of the accused’s right to a speedy trial warrants the grant of bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Pintu Yadav, who has been in custody since December 2022 for alleged murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. The applicant argued that the trial had been delayed for over three years, with only one of the 35 prosecution witnesses examined, violating his fundamental right to a speedy trial. The State opposed bail, noting the seriousness of the offence and that a prior bail application had been dismissed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s observation in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra that even in murder cases bail may be granted when the right to speedy trial is infringed, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused’s right to a speedy trial, alleged to be violated, justifies granting bail in a murder case.
- Whether the fact that this is a second bail application after a prior denial affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the paucity of examined prosecution witnesses and the circumstantial nature of evidence influence bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302
Subjects
- murder
- bail
- right to speedy trial
- circumstantial evidence
- IPC Sections 302, 201, 120B
- second bail application
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35318 of 2025
Pintu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satish Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2022, under Sections 302,
201, 120B IPC, Police Station Chitaipur, District Varanasi during
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second bail
application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of
the applicant has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated
19.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.28166 of 2023.
4. He next submits that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since
12.12.2022 i.e. for last three and half years and till date only one
prosecution witnesses could be examined, however, in the charge sheet,
there are total 35 witnesses and, therefore, there is no hope of early
disposal of the trial.
5. He further argues, the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of the
accused and on its violation even in serious cases like murder, an accused
can be released on bail.
6. He next submits that there is no evidence that the applicant is causing
delay in trial in any manner.
BAIL No. 35318 of 2025
2
7. He further argues, even it is a case of circumstantial evidence and
evidence of last seen was also against co-accused Dablu.
8. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his
credit.
9. He next submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant
may be enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits
that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but
could not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and
applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last almost
three and half years and till date only one prosecution witness could be
examined out of 35 witnesses.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
12. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of the
applicant and the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed
on merits but it reflects it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the
present matter, applicant is in jail since 12.12.2022 i.e. for last almost
three and half years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded.
From the report of the court concerned it reflects till date only one
prosecution witness could be examined, however, in the charge sheet, it
appears there are as many as 35 witnesses.
13. Further even from the report of the court concerned it reflects inspite
of the coercive measure, prosecution witnesses are not appearing before
the trial court and, therefore, it reflects without any fault of the applicant,
trial of the case is still pending.
14. The law is settled, the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of
the accused and on its violation even in serious cases like murder, an
accused can be released on bail.
15. The Apex Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of
Maharashtra SLP (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026 while enlarging the accused
BAIL No. 35318 of 2025
3
of murder on bail, who was in jail for last four years observes in
paragraph no.6 as:-
" 6. We are mindful of the fact that the petition 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 must
consider the plea for bail appropriately."
16. Further, even it reflects it is a case of circumstantial evidence and
applicant is not having any criminal history.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, and observations made by the Apex Court in the above
cases, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
19. Let the applicant -Pintu Yadav 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.
20. 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.
21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
BAIL No. 35318 of 2025
4
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.)
May 12, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…