Allahabad High Court
Tasleem vs State Of U.P. on 9 March, 2026
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:47781
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41996 of 2025
Tasleem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Atul Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sl. No. 100 out of 154)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2022, under Sections 302 of IPC, Police Station- Pilakhuva, District - Hapur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. Learned counsel has also stated that the informant and the other witnesses have been examined as P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 in court and have not supported the prosecution story. They have completely resiled from their earlier statements given to the I.O. and the allegations of the FIR. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no possibility of conviction in the present case under the circumstances.
6. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.1.2022, as such, he is incarcerated for about four years and two months and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. He has no criminal history to his credit and deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the witnesses have turned hostile.
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, and taking into consideration the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also the fact that the witnesses have turned hostile, 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- Tasleem, 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.
15. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.) March 9, 2026 Siddhant