Allahabad High Court
Gajraj vs State Of U.P . on 12 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136696 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8992 of 2024 Applicant :- Gajraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P . Counsel for Applicant :- Kanchan Chaudhary,Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Kanchan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 235 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Hasayan, District Hathras, 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.
5. Learned counsel has further stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has strong alibi as he was not present at the time of offence and had gone to Mathura for pilgrimage, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication.
6. Learned counsel has further argued that the trial is moving at snail's pace as such, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future.
7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail,
8. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 25.07.2025. As per the said report, eight witnesses have been examined to date and the trial is at its conclusive end.
9. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 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.
10. The Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav Vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.
11. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.
12. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.
13. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
14. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y versus State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of Judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
15. In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89, the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."
16. In Manoj Kumar Khokhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2022) 3 SCC 501, it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused. The same view has been vent in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr(2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55;Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118;Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89;Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458;and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr.(2022)8 SCC 559.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled by the fact that the trial is at a conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
18. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
19. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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.
20. 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.
Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal)