Allahabad High Court
Mukesh vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145229
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53171 of 2023
Applicant :- Mukesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal,Sumant Krishna Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.48 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chandinagar, District Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 12.05.2019 and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- as dowry, thereby led her to death on 07.05.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed as there is no time of offence mentioned in it. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The allegations are per se false.There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2023, as such, his period of incarceration is more than two years.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed inUnion of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein it has been 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."
8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail applicationbut could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
9.This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 05.08.2025, only one witness has been examined.
10. Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed:
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects:
(i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years;
(ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and
(iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.
9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote:
"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."
11. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 311; A Convict Prisoner v. State 1993 Cri LJ 3242; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695.
12. In the money laundering case of V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739, the accused was incarcerated for more than 15 months as such the Supreme Court declared "inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together".
13. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the period of incarceration of the applicant and the fact that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only one witness has been examined to date,and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant-Mukesh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
17. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 22.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
