Allahabad High Court
SUNILversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJ BEER SINGH
Holding
The court rejected the third bail application, holding that no case for bail exists given the gravity of the offences and the advanced stage of prosecution evidence.
Summary
The applicant, Sunil, filed a third bail application in a case (Crime No. 309 of 2020) involving charges of murder, attempt to murder, and rioting under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the firearm killings were committed by other co‑accused and that he was only alleged to have participated in a lathi assault. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the applicant is named in the FIR and that the offences are grave, with four murders and two injuries. The court noted that prosecution evidence is at the final stage, with 22 witnesses already examined, and that the seriousness of the offences outweighs the applicant's claim of no criminal history. Consequently, the court found no basis to grant bail and rejected the third bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial within seven months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged with murder, attempt to murder and rioting when prosecution evidence is at the final stage.
- Whether the applicant's claim of innocence and lack of specific role in the firearm killings warrants bail.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial custody and absence of prior criminal record justify bail in a serious offence.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- attempt to murder
- rioting
- IPC
- Criminal Law Amendment Act
- pre‑trial custody
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45995 of 2025
Sunil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 90
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present third bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in case crime No. 309 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302, 307, 34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, police
station Soron, District Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on
bail. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court on
merits vide order dated 22.10.2021 and the second bail application of
applicant was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2024.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the
accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case. It was submitted that the role of firing at the deceased persons has
been assigned to five co-accused persons. There is no such allegation that
applicant has caused any fire-arm injury. Regarding applicant and some
of the co-accused persons, only general allegations have been made that
they have assaulted the deceased and injured persons with lathis, sticks
and rods. It was further submitted that deceased Bhupendra @ Rudra and
Radha Charan @ Pappu have died of fire-arm injuries and that deceased
BAIL No. 45995 of 2025
2
Prem Singh and Pramod have died due to non-fire-arm injuries sustained
by them. Referring to statements of witnesses, it was submitted that no
specific role was assigned to the applicant. Regarding same incident a
cross-case was also lodged from the side of accused persons. In the said
incident, co-accused Krishna Kumar and Satyadev have sustained
injuries.
4. It is further submitted that the first bail application of applicant was
rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 22.10.2021 but trial is still
at the stage of prosecution evidence and thus, trial of the case is likely to
take sufficient long time in its conclusion. Applicant is in judicial custody
since 22.10.2020, having no criminal history, and that in case applicant is
enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and argued that
applicant is named in the first information report and that specific role
was assigned to him. It was further submitted that in the incident four
persons were murdered and two persons have sustained injuries. Referring
to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case for bail is made out.
6. Perusal of record shows that in the alleged incident, four persons were
murdered and two persons have sustained injuries. Applicant is named in
the first information report. As per report of the trial court, 22 witnesses
have already been examined before the trial court and it appears that
prosecution evidence is at final stage.
7. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of
the offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case
for grant of bail is made out.
BAIL No. 45995 of 2025
3
8. However, considering period of custody of applicant, the trial court is
directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible,
preferably within a period of seven months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
9. With aforesaid observations the third bail application is rejected.
10. A copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court concerned for
necessary compliance.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.)
April 15, 2026
Anand
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…