Allahabad High Court

HARI NARAYAN ALIAS MUNNAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution case is based on hearsay, no eye‑witnesses are present, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been violated.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Hari Narayan Alias Munna, accused under Section 304 IPC for the murder of his wife. The applicant argued that the prosecution’s case relied solely on hearsay, with the only witnesses being the deceased’s son and daughter, who were not eye‑witnesses and whose statements were not recorded contemporaneously. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over two years and four months, with the trial progressing slowly and no material indicating any fault on his part for the delay. Citing the violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court found no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

The prosecution case rests on hearsay evidence and lacks eye‑witness testimony; does this justify bail?
Has the applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 been violated by the prolonged pre‑trial detention?
Is there a reasonable risk that the applicant, if released on bail, will tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses?

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Indian Penal Code — s. 304

Subjects

bail
right to speedy trial
hearsay evidence
Section 304 IPC
Article 21
pre‑trial detention
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37685 of
2024

Hari Narayan Alias Munna
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Singh, Hirdesh Kumar
Yadav, Krishna Mani,
Sushma Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned
A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. This application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.38 of 2024, under Section
304 I.P.C., Police Station- Babhni, District- Sonbhadra, during
pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the
husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on hearsay
evidence. During trial, the informant, who is the son of the
deceased, was examined as P.W.-1 and the daughter of the
deceased was examined as P.W.-5. Placing reliance upon the
testimonies of both the prosecution witnesses it is contended that
they are not the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the
identity of the person who purportedly conveyed the information
regarding the incident has never been disclosed. Further, P.W.-1
in his cross-examination has deposed that when he reached the
place of occurrence, the investigating officer met him but his
statement was not recorded by him. Further, P.W.-5 in her cross-
examination stated that the applicant and the deceased never used
to fight. The relations between them were cordial. She further
BAIL No. 37685 of 2024
2

deposed that her neighbours by misleading the informant got the
first information report lodged. It is next contended that false
recovery of a lathi has been shown from an open place. There is
no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is a
law abiding citizen, who cooperated with the police investigation
and had joined the trial. The prosecution proposes to examine 14
witnesses to bring home the charges. Only six prosecution
witnesses have been examined, so far. The applicant never
influenced the witnesses and tampered with the evidence. The
trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude early.
Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to virtually an
indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any
credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the
rights of the applicant to a speedy trial. The applicant is not
responsible for the delay in trial. The applicant is languishing in
jail since 27.05.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail
but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions
from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal
of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the
testimonies of P.W.-1 (son of the deceased) and P.W.-5 (daughter
of the deceased), they are not the eye-witnesses to the alleged
incident and the identity of the person who purportedly conveyed
the information regarding the incident has never been disclosed.
The prosecution case rests on hearsay evidence. Further, the
applicant has remained confined for more than two years and four
months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. Undue
delay caused by the prosecution witnesses have led to pro-longed
incarceration of the applicant. Even the prosecution could not
bring on record any material, which would show that the trial has
been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the present
applicant. Thus, the 'right of speedy trial' of the applicant as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is
violated. Moreover, no reasonable apprehension has been brought
to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail,
BAIL No. 37685 of 2024
3

would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or
intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Hari Narayan Alias Munna, involved in
the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation
application before this Court.

September 29, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…