Allahabad High Court
Bachchu Singh vs State Of U.P. on 10 March, 2026
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:48531
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22729 of 2025
Bachchu Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 57 out of 216)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 504, 506, 120-B of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Vrindavan, District - Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the confessional statement of co-accused person wherein the applicant has been assigned the role of allegedly procuring the weapon and vehicle used in the commission of crime. Learned counsel submits that such confessional statement has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Except for the said statement of the co-accused, there is no independent or credible evidence against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel has also stated that the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained in the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2014, as such, he is incarcerated for more than twelve years. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a criminal history of 17 cases and the applicant has been convicted in Case Crime No. 315 of 2010, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 341 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kosi Kalan, District - Mathura vide order dated 01.02.2018. The applicant was in jail in five more cases in which he has yet to apply for bail.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is an indigent person and even he could not arrange any advocate for the said five cases and in rest of the cases, he has been acquitted. Even otherwise, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court in an Appeal filed against the conviction order dated 01.02.2018 in the said Case Crime No. 315 of 2018, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail as the period of incarceration is more than 12 years.
8. The Supreme Court in the judgement of Moti Ram and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47, whereby it has held as under:- "15. It is interesting that American criminological thinking and research had legislative response and the Bail Reforms Act, 1966 came into being. The then President, Lyndon B. Johnson made certain observations at the signing ceremony: "Today, we join to recognize a major development in our system of criminal justice: the reform of the bail system. This system has endued-archaic, unjust and virtually unexamined-since the Judiciary Act of 1789. The principal purpose of bail is to insure that an accused person will return for trial if he is released after arrest. How is that purpose met under the present system ? The defendant With means can afford to pay bail. He can afford to buy his freedom. But the poorer defendant cannot pay the price He languishes in jail weeks, months and perhaps even years before trial. He does not stay in jail because he is guilty. He does not stay in jail because any sentence has been passed. He does not stay in jail because he is any More likely to flee before trial. He stays in jail for one reason only-because he is poor...." 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
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. The Supreme Court in its latest judgement passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.10455-10456/2025 Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reiterated that issues of personal liberty must be addressed with utmost speed by Courts. The accused had already been incarcerated for more than three and a half years, in the instant and connected matters. Releasing accused on bail due to excessive delays by the High Court in deciding his application also took into account lengthy pre-trial confinement, emphasizing speedy decision-making for matters of personal liberty.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, period of incarceration of the applicant, and the fact that the applicant, being an indigent person, has yet to apply for bail in five cases, and further taking into account that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced only in the confessional statement of co-accused, Pratap, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, prima facie I am of the view that this is a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant- Bachchu Singh, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
17. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.) March 10, 2026 Siddhant