Allahabad High Court
Vishnu Kesari @ Bablu vs State Of U.P. on 1 April, 2026
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:69028
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7170 of 2026
Vishnu Kesari @ Bablu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Harish Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 120 out of 303)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Jairaj Singh Tomar, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Harish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Session Trial No. 12 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 861 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8403 of 2023 vide order dated 3.3.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The lover of the sister of applicant had committed the said offence by strangulating her. The prosecution witnesses are tutored ones. The informant is not an eye witness and has been examined as PW-1. The other witness is PW-2, Ashok Kesari, who is simply a witness of inquest. PW-3 Akash Kesari is the eye-witness but he has not supported the prosecution story. He has completely resiled from his earlier statement given to the Investigating Officer and the allegations of the FIR. The witness has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring him hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction in the present case under the circumstances. The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.9.2019, as such, he has been incarcerated for a period of six and a half years. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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".
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the period of incarceration and the fact that the eye-witness PW-3 has turned hostile, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant- Vishnu Kesari @ Bablu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.) April 1, 2026 Shalini