Durgesh Alias Golu Tiwari vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 3343 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Durgesh Alias Golu Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131320
 

 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17660 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Durgesh Alias Golu Tiwari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Yadav,Sonu Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ghan Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, 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 28.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38951 of 2024.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Trial No.326 of 2022, Case Crime No.80 of 2022, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, only six witnesses have been examined to date and the trial is moving at a snail's pace, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.The applicant is in jail since 19.04.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is almost at its logical end and there is likelihood of early conclusion of trial.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact thatno new ground is there for pressing the instant second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Order Date :- 5.8.2025

(Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)