Allahabad High Court
MANOJ SAHANIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated and, in the absence of any evidence that he caused the delay, he is entitled to bail.
Summary
Manoj Sahani, accused under IPC sections 498A, 304B and the Domestic Violence Act for the alleged dowry‑related death of his wife, has been in judicial custody since June 2022. He filed a second bail application, arguing that the trial has been delayed for almost four years because prosecution witnesses have repeatedly failed to appear, violating his fundamental right to a speedy trial. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and noting the applicant's prior bail denial, but did not dispute the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses. The court examined whether the delay was attributable to the accused and found no evidence that he caused it, concluding that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 had been infringed. Accordingly, the court held that bail was appropriate despite the gravity of the charges. The bail was granted subject to standard conditions and a personal bond with sureties.
Issues considered
- The accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and whether its violation warrants bail.
- Whether the accused is responsible for the delay in the trial.
- Whether bail can be granted in serious offences (IPC 498A, 304B, D.P. Act) given the circumstances.
- The effect of a prior denied bail application on the discretion to grant bail in a subsequent application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 354A, 498A
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- right to speedy trial
- Article 21
- IPC 498A
- IPC 304B
- Domestic Violence Act
- pre‑trial detention
- dowry death
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42570 of 2024
Manoj Sahani
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, K.S. Tiwari,
Shiv Shanker Pandey, Vivek Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri
Deeraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran
Khan, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 058 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chitaipur, District Varanasi during
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, this is second bail
application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the
applicant has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2023
which has been annexed at page-24 of the paper-book after considering the
fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to
smothering within four years of her marriage and there is also allegation of
torture for demand of dowry but applicant is pressing the instant second bail
application on the sole ground that in the present matter he is in jail since
02.06.2022 i.e. for almost four years and till date out of 20 witnesses only
one could be examined.
4. He further submits, along with supplementary affidavit he has filed the
latest order-sheet of the case and from the order-sheet it reflects, in spite of
repeated warrants prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial
court.
5. He further submits, on 17.02.2026 though a recall application was moved
BAIL No. 42570 of 2024
2
by the prosecution and the same was allowed but again on 13.03.2026
prosecution witnesses did not appear before the trial court and therefore it
reflects, prosecution witnesses are reluctant to appear before the trial court
and without any fault of the applicant trial is being lingered on.
6. He further submits, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an
accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail
and considering the order-sheet of the case it cannot be said that fundamental
right of applicant has not been violated and considering the fact that
applicant is in jail for almost four years he should be released on bail
specially considering the fact that there is no evidence that applicant is
causing delay in trial.
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submit, this is
second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application
of the applicant has been dismissed after considering the fact that he is
husband of the deceased and his wife died due to smothering in her
matrimonial home and there is also allegation of torture for demand of
dowry but he could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is
in jail for almost four year and till date only one prosecution witness could
be examined out of 20 witnesses of the charge-sheet and in spite of repeated
summons and warrants prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the
trial court and there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial.
8. Learned AGA however further submits, apart from the present case
applicant is having criminal history of one another case but he fairly
conceded, that case relates to Section 354A IPC which is of the year 2017.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
10. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and
first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed after considering
the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to
smothering in her matrimonial home within four years of her marriage and
there is also allegation of torture for demand of dowry but applicant is in jail
since June, 2022 i.e. for almost four years and till date out of 20 witnesses of
the charge-sheet only one could be examined.
11. Order-sheet of the case suggests that in spite of repeated summons and
BAIL No. 42570 of 2024
3
warrants prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court.
12. Further, even from the report of court concerned dated 21.02.2026 it
reflects, till 21.02.2026 only statement of PW-1 could be recorded, therefore,
it reflects, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope
of early disposal of trial and there is no evidence that applicant is causing
delay in trial rather it reflects, due to non appearance of the prosecution
witnesses trial could not be proceeded any further.
13. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for
applicant that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and
an accused cannot be detained in jail without trial for eternal period as pre
trial conviction is not permissible.
14. This Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel
for applicant that if from the record it reflects, fundamental right of speedy
trial of the accused has been violated then in appropriate cases this Court can
enlarge the accused on bail. As already observed from the record of the case
it reflects, in spite of repeated warrants prosecution witnesses are not turning
before the trial court and there is no evidence that applicant is causing delay
in trial, therefore, prima facie it reflects, fundamental right of speedy trial of
the applicant has been violated.
15. In the present matter applicant is in jail for almost four years, therefore,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the long
incarceration of about four years of applicant and conduct of prosecution
witnesses, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant - Manoj Sahani 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
BAIL No. 42570 of 2024
4
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
18. 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.
19. 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.
April 23, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…