Allahabad High Court
Mobin vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134685
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27120 of 2025
Applicant :- Mobin
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.181 of 2024, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Lohiyanagar, District- Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46474 of 2024.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8.5.2024, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as the trial is moving at a snail's pace and only two witnesses have been examined to date. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there are several contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, as such, there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application that there is no new ground for pressing the present bail application except the period of incarceration. The statement of PW-1 and PW-2 was recorded subsequent to the earlier order of this Court and they have supported the prosecution story. The trial is going on, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
9. 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.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the present bail application and also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
12. 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.
13. 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 :- 8.8.2025/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
