Allahabad High Court
TRIVENI PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The court held that, given the seriousness of the offence, the material evidence and the absence of a recorded statement of the main eyewitness, bail could not be granted.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Triveni Prasad, who is charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder. The applicant argued that five witnesses had turned hostile, the trial was delayed, and there was no risk of flight or tampering. The State contended that the main eyewitness, Mahajan Bhujwa, had not yet been recorded, making the offence serious and bail inappropriate. After evaluating the nature of the offence, the evidence, and the seriousness of the charge, the Court found no sufficient reason to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial within a year and to use coercive measures if witnesses remain absent.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a murder case (Section 302 IPC) after a prior bail denial, considering hostile witnesses and trial delay.
- Whether the non-recording of the main eyewitness statement justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- Section 302 IPC
- murder
- hostile witnesses
- trial delay
- evidence
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4344 of 2026
Triveni Prasad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shri Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shri Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and
Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the material
on record.
2. This is the second bail application which has been filed on behalf of the
applicant, Triveni Prasad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case
Crime No.122 of 2023, under Section 302 of I.PC., Police Station-
Raipura, District-Chitrakoot, during pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail
application. The first bail application has been rejected vide order dated
13.05.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16586 of 2024
(Triveni Prasad vs. State of U.P.). He further contends that after rejection
of the first bail, five witnesses have been examined, who have turned
hostile. Emphasizing upon the period of detention i.e from 08.10.2025,
learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to
be released on bail. He also contends that there is no prospect of trial
being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. There is no
possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the
witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submits that statement of
eyewitness; Mahajan Bhujwa, who was sitting along with the other
eyewitnesses, where the deceased was also sitting has not been recorded
BAIL No. 4344 of 2026
2
till date. He further contends that the aforesaid person is the main witness.
Hence, the offence being serious in nature, the applicant is not entitled to
be released on bail at this stage.
5. Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on
record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any
good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant.
Thus, the present bail application stands rejected.
6. However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere
endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from
the date of production of certified copy of this order. It goes without
saying that if the prosecution witnesses are not turning up deliberately,
then the court below has all the powers to adopt all the coercive measures
provided under the Code in order to procure the presence of the witnesses.
7. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to
concerned court for necessary compliance.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
May 5, 2026
K.N.
Digitally signed by :-
KALP NATH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…