Allahabad High Court
RAMESHCHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The bail application is rejected.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rameshchandra, who is accused in a 1999 case under IPC sections 307, 323, 324 and 506. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and that the FIR did not specifically charge him, asserting he only carried a ballam while the co‑accused fired a weapon. The State opposed bail. The Court noted that 27 years had elapsed without the charge being framed, and observed that the applicant had been filing multiple applications to avoid committal and trial, showing non‑cooperation and taking undue advantage of the process. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient ground to grant bail and rejected the application, directing the trial court to frame charges and proceed with the trial. The observations were limited to the bail application and not on the merits of the criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the long pendency of the case and the fact that charges have not yet been framed
- Whether the applicant's alleged non‑cooperation and filing of multiple applications constitute a ground to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 506
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- delay in trial
- charge framing
- IPC sections 307, 323, 324, 506
- false implication
- non‑cooperation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8131 of 2026
Rameshchandra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Pandey, Hariyali Sharma,
Kamini Pandey (Dubey), Rekha Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant/
Rameshchandra, for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 71 of 1999, under
Sections 307, 323, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police
Station Tundla, District Firozabad, during pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application,
submits that, the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant
case and has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that, no allegation
against applicant has been levelled in the first information report of this case
and specific role of firing has been assigned to the co-accused Purushottam,
who has caused firearm injuries to the injured. The only allegation against
the applicant is that, he came up with the co-accused persons carrying
Ballam in his hand. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that, the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this matter, since
2.2.2026, without having any criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood
that, the accused-applicant, after release on bail, may flee from the process
of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State opposes the prayer for bail
of the applicant.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused
BAIL No. 8131 of 2026
2
the record, it is evident that, the case in hand pertains to the year 1999
and about 27 years have elapsed, but charge in the said case crime has
not yet been framed. It appears that, the accused- applicant is trying to
avoid, first of all, the committal of the case, then framing of charge and
thereafter, trial. The conduct of the applicant shows that, he is not
cooperating in the matter, and is also taking undue advantage of the process
of law by filing one application after another. Hence, no leniency can be
given to such defaulting person. Thus, having regard to the evidence
available on record against the applicant and considering the fact of charges
not being framed against the applicant due to his avoidance and negligence, I
do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the bail
application moved on behalf of applicant - Rameshchandra is hereby
rejected.
6. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of
disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression
of this Court on the merits of the case.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to frame the charge against the applicant
forthwith and begin with the trial.
8. It is further directed, if the matter has not yet been committed to the
concerned trial Court, then the matter be immediately committed to the trial
Court for proceeding further in the matter.
April 23, 2026
Gurpreet Singh
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GURPREET SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…