Sanjay Kumar Yadav Alias Batti vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 12593 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sanjay Kumar Yadav Alias Batti vs State Of U.P. on 15 November, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:203277
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40082 of 2025   
 
   Sanjay Kumar Yadav Alias Batti    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Tripurari Pal   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 67
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.      

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first and second bail applications were rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 4.4.2023 and 24.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9272 of 2023 and 48236 of 2023.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.145 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, only five witnesses have been examined to date and there is no likelihood early conclusion of trial in near future. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. The applicant is in jail since 23.07.2022 and 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.

7. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 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 and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the third bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

November 15, 2025

(Ravi Kant)