Allahabad High Court
Shakil Shah 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:145287
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145287
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1059 of 2024
Applicant :- Shakil Shah
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.300 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved and the viscera report does not indicate presence of any poison in it, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.07.2022, as such, his period of incarceration is more than three years.
5. 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.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Union 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."
7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 14.08.2025, six witness have been examined.
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. 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".
12. 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.
13. 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 no poison has been found in the viscera report of the deceased person, 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.
14. Let the applicant-Shakil Shah, 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.
15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
16. 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)
