Allahabad High Court

1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Navnath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No.601 of 2015 (State vs. Rakesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Kandhrapur, District- Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2009 and the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24674 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. The cross-examination of Ajeet Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, is going on who has been examined as PW-9. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.8.2015, as such, he is incarcerated for 10 years and 01 month. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. 2 BAIL No. 25925 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the only ground on which earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected was that there was a statement of victim recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, which tantamount to dying-declaration. Learned counsel has stated that it is self-contradictory as the victim was admitted in Singh Medical & Research Center, Varanasi and she was taken from Azamgarh to Varanasi and was admitted on 29.7.2015 at 01:30 p.m. the same day and the Investigating Officer is stated to have recorded the statement of victim at Sadar Hospital, which is not possible. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 3.9.2025, nine prosecution witnesses have been examined and the cross-examination of Ajeet Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, is going on. The case is fixed for remaining prosecution evidence.

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. 3 BAIL No. 25925 of 2025

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, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors.

1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Navnath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No.601 of 2015 (State vs. Rakesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Kandhrapur, District- Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

4. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2009 and the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24674 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. The cross-examination of Ajeet Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, is going on who has been examined as PW-9. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.8.2015, as such, he is incarcerated for 10 years and 01 month. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. 2 BAIL No. 25925 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the only ground on which earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected was that there was a statement of victim recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, which tantamount to dying-declaration. Learned counsel has stated that it is self-contradictory as the victim was admitted in Singh Medical & Research Center, Varanasi and she was taken from Azamgarh to Varanasi and was admitted on 29.7.2015 at 01:30 p.m. the same day and the Investigating Officer is stated to have recorded the statement of victim at Sadar Hospital, which is not possible. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 3.9.2025, nine prosecution witnesses have been examined and the cross-examination of Ajeet Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, is going on. The case is fixed for remaining prosecution evidence.

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. 3 BAIL No. 25925 of 2025

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, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors.