Allahabad High Court
Roshan Kahn vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133726
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30724 of 2023
Applicant :- Roshan Kahn
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram,Keshari Nandan Singh,Sadrul Islam Jafri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma,G.A.,Kamlakar Pal
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri NI Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri SI Jafri, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kamlakar Pal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.552 of 2022, under Sections 452, 302, 34 IPC, Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Four prosecution witnesses have already been examined during trial, as such, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2022 having no criminal history to his credit. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person who had committed the said offence of murder and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is the main assailant and the trial being at its conclusive end and also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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.
11. 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 :- 7.8.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
