Allahabad High Court
RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was rejected as it lacked any substantive ground beyond the duration of incarceration.
Summary
The applicant Rahul, charged under Sections 115(2), 64 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, has been in judicial custody since 21 October 2024. He filed a second bail application, arguing that his prolonged detention of over one and a half years violates his Article 21 right to liberty and that the trial is progressing slowly with only four witnesses examined. The State opposed bail, contending that the trial is underway and that the applicant has no fresh ground for relief beyond the length of incarceration. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024 INSC 909), which holds that bail is generally not granted after charge framing unless exceptional circumstances exist. Finding no new substantive ground and deeming the period of detention insufficient for bail, the Court rejected the application and directed the trial court to expedite the pending trial, citing Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Hussain vs. Union of India.
Issues considered
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention alone warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail after charge framing under the cited statutes.
- Application of the Supreme Court precedent X vs. State of Rajasthan on bail after trial commencement.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 64
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37262 of 2025
Rahul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Beerendra Pratap Singh, Indra Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narayan Singh(Kushwaha)
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.58 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Indra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Narayan
Singh (Kushwaha), learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra
Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.
3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.3.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.3423 of 2025.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.195 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act,
Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah with the prayer to enlarge him
on bail.
5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated the
applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2024, as such, he is incarcerated
in jail for more than one and a half years. The trial is moving at a snail's pace
as only four witnesses have been examined to date. As such, there is no
likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The fundamental rights of the
applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand
violated. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 37262 of 2025
2
6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the
informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground
that the trial is moving on as already four witnesses have been examined,
as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it
should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result
in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally
granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not
be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the
deposition.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that counsel for the applicant could not produce any
new ground for pressing the instant bail application except the period of
incarceration undergone by the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant
of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and
is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid
down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod
Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another
vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…