Allahabad High Court

Shivam (Shivam Sharma) vs State Of U.P. on 27 August, 2025

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43338 of 2024

Court No. - 65

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Tufail Hasan, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, 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 Case Crime No.22 of 2024, under
Sections 498A
,
304B
I.P.C. and
Section 3
/
D.P. Act, Police Station-Khairgarh, District-Firozabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Applicant has strong alibi as he was attending his duty as Grease Helper in Haldar Infratech and rushed to the place of occurrence after the said incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 01.02.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 07.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned two witnesses have been examined.

7. 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.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that promptness of FIR, the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and two witnesses having 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.

August 27, 2025

Karan