Allahabad High Court
MUKESH KUMAR @ SUGGAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as the court found no merit to grant bail to the accused.
Summary
The applicant, Mukesh Kumar, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 120‑B of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of his wife. He claimed innocence, arguing that the death was accidental, the FIR was delayed by nine hours, and that the trial had progressed slowly with only four witnesses examined. The State opposed bail, contending that the applicant, being the husband, had committed the murder in their home. The court noted the dilatory tactics in cross‑examination and the seriousness of the charges, especially given the marital relationship. Consequently, the bail application was rejected as lacking merit, and the court directed an expeditious trial. The observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, attempt to murder, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 120‑B IPC.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the slow progress of the trial justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 147, 148, 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 302 IPC
- section 120-B IPC
- speedy trial
- husband-wife homicide
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39181 of 2025
Mukesh Kumar @ Sugga
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Zarrar Khan, Deepak Singh Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 48 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Deepak Singh Patel, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 190 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station
Soraon, District Prayagraj, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
There are five injuries sustained by the deceased person as per the post-
mortem report and the cause of death is trauma due to anti-mortem head
injury. The deceased sustained head injury in an accident. The applicant has
nothing to do with the offence. The FIR is delayed by about nine hours and
there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the trial is moving at a
snail's pace, as only four witnesses have been examined to date. The
applicant is in jail since 17.4.2022, as such, the period of incarceration is a
bit less than four years. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
BAIL No. 39181 of 2025
2
on the ground that the applicant is the husband and committed the murder of
the deceased in his house only and has tried to show it to be an accidental
death.
7. This Court had called for the status of trial. As per the status report
dated 1.12.2025, four witnesses have been examined to date. PW-1 was
examined on nine dates, PW-2 on five days, PW-3 on six dates and PW-4
on nine dates, as such, these circumstances speak volume of dilatory
tactics of the applicant in cross-examining the witnesses.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the status report received from the trial court and also the fact that the
applicant being the husband of the deceased, who has expired in his house
only, 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 as early as possible 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.)
March 19, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…