Allahabad High Court
SAMI ALI KHANversusState of UP
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJ BEER SINGH
Holding
The Court refused bail, holding that no fresh ground was shown and the seriousness of the offence and risk of flight warranted continued detention.
Summary
The applicant, Sami Ali Khan, was charged under Sections 302, 120‑B and 34 of the IPC for the daylight murder of an eye surgeon, with the FIR assigning him the role of firing. He has been in custody since May 2021, amounting to about four and a half years, and filed a second bail application after an earlier denial. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that witness statements did not name him and that the prosecution’s version was contradictory. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s alleged abscondment, prior convictions under the Passport Act, and the risk of flight or evidence tampering. The Court found no new material or fresh ground in the second application and, considering the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s antecedents, refused bail, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within nine months.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail after four and a half years of custody in a murder case.
- Whether the second bail application raised any fresh ground warranting a different decision.
- Whether the risk of flight or tampering with evidence justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 174-A, 302, 34
- Passport Act — s. 6
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Cr.P.C.
- custody
- trial delay
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36191 of 2024
Sami Ali Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Tripathi, Divyansh Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Sharma, G.A., Rahul Jain
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant,
learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 320 of 2019, under Sections - 302, 120-B, 34
I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Kayamganj, District - Farrukhabad, with the
prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that as per
version of first information report, role of firing was assigned to the
applicant but during investigation it was found that applicant has got
murdered deceased from co-accused persons and thus, prosecution version is
quite contradictory. Statement of witness Fateh Ali Khan was referred and it
was pointed out that he did not name the applicant and as per statements of
accused persons, the role of firing was assigned to co-accused persons.
4. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 but only a few witnesses have
BAIL No. 36191 of 2024
2
been examined so far, whereas applicant is languishing in jail since
27.05.2021 and thus, applicant has already undergone custody of about four
and a half years. Criminal history shown against applicant has been
explained. Lastly, it was submitted that in case, applicant is granted bail, he
shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the
prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant has committed murder of an
eye surgeon in broad day light in mid of city. Applicant is named in the first
information report and the role of firing was assigned to him. After incident,
applicant has absconded and process under Section - 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was
issued against him and a case under Section - 174-A I.P.C. was also
registered against him. Later applicant was arrested from Chennai. Applicant
was previously convicted in a case under Section - 6 Passport Act and he
was also convicted in a passport related case in Malaysia. It was submitted
that trial is being delayed by the accused persons. It was further submitted
that in case applicant is granted bail, he may flee from justice and tamper
with evidence.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. Perusal of record shows that applicant is named in the first information
report and role of firing at deceased has been assigned to him. Incident
relates to a day light murder of an eye surgeon. Except period of custody, no
new ground is made out in this second bail application. Considering entire
fact and antecedents of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail
to the applicant.
8. However, considering the period of custody of applicant, the trial Court is
BAIL No. 36191 of 2024
3
directed to expedite the trial and to record the statements of all the material
witnesses as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary
adjournment to either of the party. The applicant would be at liberty to file a
fresh bail application after expiry of nine months.
9. With aforesaid observations, the second bail application filed on behalf of
applicant - Sami Ali Khan, is hereby rejected.
10. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.)
March 10, 2026
S Rawat
Digitally signed by :-
SHOBHIT RAWAT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…