Allahabad High Court
AHMAD HASANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected.
Summary
The applicant, Ahmad Hasan, filed a second bail application in a criminal case (Crime No.0244 of 2023) involving charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial is near its conclusion, with the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. already recorded. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found the bail application without merit and rejected it, noting that the case is not suitable for bail at this stage. The court directed that the trial be expedited, citing Supreme Court precedents. It clarified that its observations pertain only to the bail application and do not affect the trial's merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused during the pendency of trial when the trial is near its logical end and the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 498-A
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC 498A
- IPC 304B
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- expeditious trial
- right to bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9011 of 2026
Ahmad Hasan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.3 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.27329 of 2024.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0244 of 2023, under Sections 498-
A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Azeem Nagar,
District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the trial is almost at its logical end, as the statement of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded, I do not find it
a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found
devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
6. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
BAIL No. 9011 of 2026
2
impediment.
7. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…