Allahabad High Court
RAVI KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Ravi Kumar, who has been in custody for over one and a half years for an offence under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that no prosecution witness had been examined and that he was not causing any delay in the trial, while also noting his two prior minor criminal cases. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charge and the fact that this was a second application after the first was dismissed. The court examined the record, found no evidence that the applicant intended to cause death or was delaying the trial, and noted his minor criminal history. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions regarding appearance, non‑interference with witnesses, and abstaining from criminal activity.
Issues considered
- Whether a second bail application can be granted after the first bail application was dismissed
- Whether the applicant is causing delay in the trial of the offence under Section 105
- Whether the nature of the offence and the applicant's prior minor criminal history preclude bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- Section 105
- second bail application
- trial delay
- criminal history
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40350 of 2025
Ravi Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev
Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 830 of 2024, under Sections 105 BNS, Police
Station Majhola, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application
filed on behalf of applicant but applicant is facing trial for offence under
Section 105 BNS and he is in jail for last more than one and half years and
till date not even single witness could be examined. He further submits, there
is no evidence which can suggests that applicant is delaying trial.
6. He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having two
criminal history but both the cases relate to minor offence.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is
second bail application filed on behalf of applicant but could not dispute the
fact that applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 105 BNS and he is
in jail for last more than one and half years and till date not even single
prosecution witness could be examined. He also could not dispute the fact
that applicant is not causing delay in trial.
BAIL No. 40350 of 2025
2
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
9. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and
first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed but applicant is
facing trial for offence under Section 105 BNS and he is in jail for last more
than one and half years and from the report of the court concerned it reflects,
till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined. From the
report it could not be reflected, applicant is causing delay in trial.
10. Further, even from the record it could not be reflected that applicant was
having intention to cause death of the deceased.
11. Further, apart from the present case applicant is however having criminal
history of two other cases but both the cases relate to minor offence.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant - Ravi Kumar 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
BAIL No. 40350 of 2025
3
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
March 18, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…