Guddu Urf Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12833 of 2025

Court No. - 66 (Sr. No.37 out of 116) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

¶2Heard Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.196 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 238, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gopiganj, District-Bhadohi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of suspicion only subsequently as an afterthought. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶5Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is statement of one Pradeep Bind, who is stated to have last seen the applicant alongwith the deceased and the dead body of the deceased was recovered thereupon. It is further stated that already six witnesses have been examined, as such, the applicant is not entitled to bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kalamuddin, M. A. Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, G.A., Hind Pratap Lal, Yasmeen Jahan Guddu Urf Satya Prakash .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 4.2.2026, six witnesses have already been examined.

¶7The 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.

¶8After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is evidence of last seen against the applicant coupled by the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end as already six witnesses have been examined, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶9However, 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.

¶10It 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. March 19, 2026 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 12833 of 2025 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad