Allahabad High Court
AMARNATH SHARMA ALIAS BABBUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant's right to a speedy trial was violated, justifying the grant of bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Summary
Amarnath Sharma, accused of offences under Sections 147, 302, 307, 323 and 504 IPC, has been in judicial custody since December 7, 2019. This was his third bail application; the earlier two were dismissed. The applicant argued that the trial had been delayed for over six years, with only one of thirty‑three witnesses examined, violating his fundamental right to a speedy trial. The State contended that the seriousness of the murder charge outweighed the delay and that the applicant was the principal accused. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026), the High Court held that the right to speedy trial had been infringed and, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, granted bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prolonged delay in trial infringes the accused's right to a speedy trial sufficient to warrant bail in a murder case.
- Whether the delay is attributable to the prosecution, the defence, or both, and its impact on bail eligibility.
- Whether prior dismissal of bail applications precludes granting bail on the ground of speedy trial violation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 302, 307, 323, 504
Subjects
- bail
- right to speedy trial
- murder
- IPC
- trial delay
- fundamental rights
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45892 of 2025
Amarnath Sharma Alias Babbu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Tiwari, Niraj Kumar
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Kumar Gupta, G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is
taken on record.
2.Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Niraj
Kumar Dwivedi. learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar
Gupta, learned counsel for informant and Sri Satrughan Yadav, learned
AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2020 arising of Case Crime
No. 370 of 2019, under Sections 147, 302, 307, 323 and 504 IPC, Police
Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, this is the third
bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail
applications have been dismissed by this Court, one by Coordinate Bench
of this Court and one by this Bench after considering merit of the case and
both the previous orders passed by this Court have been annexed along
with the instant bail application but applicant is pressing this third bail
application on the ground that he is in jail in the present matter since
7.12.2019 i.e. for last almost 6-1/2 years and till date out of 33 witnesses
in the charge sheet only two could be examined and even till date
testimony of P.W.2 could not be concluded.
5. He next submits, the law is settled that right of speedy trial is the
fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious
matters like murder, he can be released on bail.
6. He next submits, from the entire material available on record, including
order sheet of the case and even from the report submitted by the court
concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant is sole responsible for
BAIL No. 45892 of 2025
2
delay in trial and thus it cannot be said that his right of speedy trial has
not been infringed.
7. He next submits, considering the fact that till date out of 33 witnesses
not even testimony of P.W. 2 could be concluded, it is apparent there is
no likelihood of early disposal of the trial.
8. He further argued, therefore, considering the long incarceration of the
applicant of more than six years, coupled with the fact that applicant is
not having any other criminal history, he may be released on bail.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant opposed
the prayer for bail and submit this is the third bail application filed on
behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been
dismissed after considering the fact that he appears to be principal
accused who caused injuries to the deceased but they could not dispute
the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 7.12.2019 i.e.
for almost 6-1/2 years and till date out of 33 witnesses only one witness
could be examined and even testimony of P.W. 2 could not be concluded.
10. They, however, further submitted that from record it reflects due to
the time sought by learned counsel for the accused person trial is being
delayed.
11. They further submit, however, right of speedy trial is the fundamental
right of an accused but considering the fact that applicant is facing trial of
murder in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment, it is not
proper to release the applicant on bail merely on the basis of his long
incarceration of six years.
12. They further submit, therefore, the instant bail application may be
dismissed.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
14. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and
his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed on merit.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant pressed the instant third bail
application on the sole ground that in the present matter applicant is
detained in jail since December, 2019 i.e for almost 6-1/2 years and till
date out of 33 witnesses in the charge sheet only one could be examined
and testimony of P.W. 2 has not been concluded and, therefore, right of
speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.
16. The law is settled if fundamental right of speedy trial of accused is
infringed then even in serious cases like murder he can be released on
bail.
BAIL No. 45892 of 2025
3
17. From the report of court concerned, however, it reflects on number of
occasions counsel for the applicant and other accused sought time for
cross examination but from the report it also reflects, according to the
court concerned, on number of dates fixed for evidence witnesses did not
appear and, therefore, it reflects prosecution witnesses are also
responsible in delay in trial and considering the entire material available
on record it cannot be said that right of the speedy trial of the applicant
has not been infringed.
18. Recently, Apex Court in case of Sahil Manoj Machare vs. The State of
Maharashtra, S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026 had occasion to consider the
aspect of right of speedy trial of an accused in case of murder and on
5.4.2026 the Apex court was pleased to enlarge the accused of that case
on bail after considering the fact that he was in jail for almost four years
and it appears his right of speedy trial has been violated. The Apex Court
while enlarging the accused on bail in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 observed as
under:
"6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the
offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever
serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then
Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.
7. Here is a case wherein past almost four years, the petitioner is in jail
but not a single witness has been examined."
19. Further, it reflects applicant is not having any criminal history to his
credit.
20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above,
as it appears applicant is in jail for last almost 6-1/2 years and his right of
speedy trial has been violated, therefore, the view expressed by Apex
Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare (supra), in view of this Court,
applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
22. Let the applicant -Amarnath Sharma @ Babbu 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
BAIL No. 45892 of 2025
4
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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 6, 2026
Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…