Allahabad High Court
MUKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The bail application is rejected; the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
Mukesh applied for bail in a 1992 case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. He claimed that his earlier bail in 1994 was terminated because he had to leave the city for livelihood reasons, not because he absconded, and that he has been in custody since March 2024. The State opposed bail, contending that he had previously absconded for three decades after being released and had committed further heinous crimes, including murder and attempted murder, during that period. The Court examined the applicant’s long‑term abscondence, his criminal history, and the credibility of his livelihood excuse, finding them unconvincing. Relying on the risk of further abscondence and criminal activity, the Court denied bail and ordered the trial court to complete the trial within one year.
Issues considered
- Whether an accused who previously absconded after being released on bail is eligible for bail in the present proceedings.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and alleged commission of murder and attempted murder justify denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of livelihood necessity is sufficient to overcome the risk of abscondence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307
- U.P. Gangsters Act
Subjects
- bail
- abscondence
- criminal antecedents
- IPC
- U.P. Gangsters Act
- murder
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4947 of 2026
Mukesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pavanesh Kumar Yadav, Sonu Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar Advocate holding brief of Sri Pavanesh Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA
for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302
IPC, Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahr, during pendency of the
trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the instant matter
applicant was initially enlarged on bail in the year 1994 but thereafter he
allegedly absconded.
4. He further submitted that applicant was not the absconder and due to his
livelihood he had to go some other place and when after thirty years he
returned then he was arrested in another case and thereafter on 30.3.2024 he
has been sent to jail in the instant matter and since then he is in jail.
5. He further submitted that however applicant remained absent for almost
three decades but in the present mater he is in jail for last more than two
years.
6. He further submitted that however apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of three other cases but one case is of the provisions
of U.P. Gangsters Act and however other two cases were of sections 302 and
307 IPC but in both the cases, applicant has falsely been made accused.
BAIL No. 4947 of 2026
2
7. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts of the case,
applicant may be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that
applicant misused the liberty of bail granted to him and he absconded for
three decades and during his abscondance in the year 2023 and 2024 he
again committed heinous crimes like murder and attempt to murder and in
one case, he was arrested then thereafter he was sent to jail in the present
matter.
9. He further submitted that considering the conduct and criminal
antecedents of the applicant, there is every possibility that after release on
bail he will again abscond and he will again indulge in criminal activities.
10. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts of the case
instant bail application may be dismissed.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
12. However in the present matter applicant is in jail since 30.3.2024 i.e. for
last more than two years but it reflects, after released on bail he absconded
for three decades.
13. Record further suggests that after 30 years applicant was arrested in
another case and thereafter he was sent to jail in the present matter.
14. The ground taken by the applicant that due to his livelihood he could not
attend the court concerned as he went outside the city, prima facie, appears
to be false and vague.
15. Further, even it reflects, during his abscondance, applicant committed
heinous offences like murder and attempt to murder.
16. Considering the conduct and criminal antecedents of the applicant, this
Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that if applicant
is released on bail then there is every possibility that he will again abscond
and he will again indulge in criminal activities.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in view of this Court, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
BAIL No. 4947 of 2026
3
18. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
19. However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than
two years, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within one
year from the date of production/knowledge of the order passed today, in
accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
20. 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.
21. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this
order to the concerned District Judge within 48 hours for necessary
compliance.
September 18, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…