Allahabad High Court
BABLUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected as it is devoid of merit and no new ground for bail is established.
Summary
The applicant, Bablu, filed a second bail application in a trial concerning offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He argued that only one witness had been examined since the first bail plea was rejected and asserted his willingness to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the application, contending no new ground existed for granting bail. The Court observed that the second application lacked any fresh ground and was therefore devoid of merit, and consequently rejected the bail plea. The Court also directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing Supreme Court precedents, while clarifying that its observations pertained solely to the bail application and not the trial merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground that only one witness has been examined since the first bail application was rejected.
- Whether a second bail application without any new ground can be entertained.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 498-A
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 498-A
- Section 304-B
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- second bail application
- trial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9276 of 2026
Bablu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Piyush Patel, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.8 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Piyush Patel, learned counsel for 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 13.08.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.9609 of 2024.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session
Trial No.313 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.16 of 2020, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Purandarpur,
District Maharajganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated, as a new ground, that only
one witness has been examined since the first bail application of the
applicant was rejected. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2020 and is ready
to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application,
I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail
BAIL No. 9276 of 2026
2
application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. 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
impediment.
9. 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…