Kartar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Kartar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025

Bench: Krishan Pahal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148594
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34944 of 2024   
 
   Kartar Singh    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajesh Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 65
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Trial No. 109 of 2024 (Kartar Singh vs. State of UP), arising out of Case Crime No.254 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Shahbad, District- Rampur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person, but he has nothing to do with the said offence. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Learned counsel has stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as no witness has been examined for the last five months, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 10.11.2023 and he 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 14.8.2025, three witnesses have been examined.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant and three witnesses have already been examined, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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.

11. 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.) August 26, 2025 Vikas Verma

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court