Allahabad High Court
Uday Pratap vs State Of U.P. on 14 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:183805
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17617 of 2025
Uday Pratap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Akash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Vivek Kumar Singh
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Case called out in revised list. None present on behalf of informant.
2. Heard Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 362 of 2020, under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Etawah during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant, who is husband of the deceased and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court on merit vide order dated 18.08.2023 and he is pressing the instant second bail application mainly on the ground that applicant is in jail since 23.09.2020 i.e. for last more than five years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.
5. He further submits, in the instant matter after hearing the argument from both sides on 09.12.2024 the judgment was reserved by the trial court and on 17.12.2024 again date has been fixed as 24.12.2024 for argument and delivery of judgment.
6. He next submits, since 24.12.2024 till 08.10.2025 dates are being fixed for argument and on 08.10.2025 court concerned called a report from Investigating Officer of the case with regard to CDR of Mobile Nos. 9783394737 and 8979627170, therefore, considering the speed of the trial there is no hope of its early disposal.
7. He next submits, however, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but as per prosecution she died at or around 12 hours in the noon and at that time applicant was not present in home and there is no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant was present at that time in his house.
8. He further submits, unless and until prosecution is able to prove the presence of applicant in his house no burden can be placed upon applicant under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
9. He further submits, law is settled that considering the long incarceration of an accused even in serious cases he can be released on bail.
10. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.
11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation.
12. Learned AGA further submits, from the order-sheet it reflects, till 08.10.2025 applicant was taking time to conclude the argument, therefore, it appears, applicant is not interested that trial court may deliver final judgment and therefore, it reflects, applicant is adopting delaying tactics but he could not dispute the fact that on 08.10.2025 trial court called CDR with regard to two mobile numbers from the Investigating Officer concerned and applicant is in jail for last more than five years.
13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however wife of the applicant died due to strangulation but she died in the afternoon and there is no evidence that at that time applicant was present in his house. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
15. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but it reflects, in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than five years and considering the long incarceration of the applicant a report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from perusal of report dated 03.09.2025 submitted by the court concerned it reflects, counsel for applicant is continuously seeking adjournment from December, 2024 to 08.10.2025 although dates were being fixed for final argument but from the order-sheet dated 08.10.2025 it reflects, on 08.10.2025 court concerned called a report from Investigating Officer Rajeev Pratap Singh, the then Circle Officer with regard to two mobile numbers and considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that in the entire exercise some considerable time may consume. Further, admittedly applicant is in jail for last more than five years.
16. Further, as far as merit of the present case is concerned however applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but it appears, she died in the afternoon and as per applicant at that time he was not present in his house and from the record it could not be reflected that prosecution could place any evidence that on the date and time of incident applicant was present in his home. Considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that as there is no evidence that applicant was present in his home at the time of incident, therefore, burden of prove under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act cannot be shifted upon him.
17. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.
18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
20. Let the applicant -Uday Pratap be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
22. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
October 14, 2025
AK Pandey
