While taking a very firm approach on the question of bail in a murder case, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Rana Pratap Singh vs State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Case No. – 14940 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC:131610 that was pronounced as recently as on 5.8.2025 has rejected the second bail application that had been filed of Rana Pratap Singh who is an advocate and so also who is an accused in a 2019 murder case. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench that was presided over by Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishan Pahal after perusing the facts of the case and so also the evidence before it denied bail that was sought by the accused primarily on the grounds that the trial is at a conclusive stage and so also that the delay in the proceedings was largely attributable to the applicant’s own “dilatory tactics”. The accused who is the applicant for bail has been in jail since April 9, 2019.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishan Pahal of the Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh and Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior counsels assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Dr. S.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shambhavi Nandan, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 about the purpose of the application that, “The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Sessions Trial No.237 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.81 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302, 307, 336/34 I.P.C. and 27/30 Arms Act, Police Station- Devgaon, District- Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.”
Briefly stated, the Bench points out in para 4 that, “This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55798 of 2019.”
Simply put, the Bench while mentioning about the argument that was forwarded on behalf of the applicant states in para 5 that, “The present bail application is being pressed on the new ground of period of incarceration as the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.4.2019, as such, he is incarcerated for about 06 years and 04 months. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then while elaborating further mentions in para 6 that, “Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein it has been observed as under:-
“We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent’s prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail.””
Simply put, the Bench states in para 11 that, “The applicant has to challenge the said order dated 4.8.2025 as the valuable right of the applicant to cross-examine one of the most important witness, who happens to be the Investigating Officer, stands violated.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then notes in para 14 that, “The present bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the informant on the ground that in the instant case the first charge-sheet was filed on 8.7.2019 against five accused persons including the applicant. The second charge-sheet was filed against two other accused persons. The charge was framed on 8.8.2019 against the accused persons mentioned in the first charge-sheet including the applicant and the charge against the other accused persons mentioned in the second charge-sheet was framed on 4.1.2021.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench lays bare in para 15 pointing out that, “The applicant and other accused persons had repeatedly tried to interfere in the administration of justice as they had adopted every dilatory tactics to get the matter adjourned on one pretext or another. The statement of witnesses could not be completed as the case was adjourned at the behest of counsel of the applicant and other accused persons.”
It is worth paying attention that the Bench then notes and laments in para 16 revealing that, “The cross-examination of PW-1 was adjourned on 13 occasions and even the statement of other witnesses were also not recorded due to the adjournments at the behest of counsel of accused persons. The cross-examination of PW-9 was complete on 31.7.2025 and the case was fixed for recording of statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 2.8.2025.”
It also cannot be just glossed over that the Bench points out in para 18 that, “The applicant is a notorious person with criminal state of mind as he used to threat witnesses and other persons by using his mobile in jail premises and an FIR No.364 of 2022 was instituted against the applicant U/s 42 & 43 of the Prisons Act, 1894 for the reason that applicant used to call several persons from jail, as such, he was transferred from Azamgarh jail to Pilibhit jail. This forced the prosecution to give up their injured witnesses.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 23 that, “This Court had called for status report of trial from the concerned trial court. The report of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Azamgarh dated 25.7.2025 indicates as follows:-
(i). The examination-in-chief of PW-1 was recorded on 31.10.2019 and he was partially cross-examined on 17.1.2020. After the committal of another Session Trial No.109 of 2020 and the instant Session Trial No.237 of 2019 were consolidated and de-novo trial was started. As such, examination-in-chief of PW-1 was again recorded on 7.9.2021. The cross-examination of PW-1 by the counsel of the applicant was done on 14.10.2021, 26.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 8.11.2021, 15.11.2021, 23.11.2021, 24.11.2021, 3.12.2021 and it could be concluded on 6.12.2021.
(ii). The statement PW-2 was recorded on 22.2.2022, 23.2.2022 and 24.2.2022.
(iii). The statement of PW-4 was recorded on 9.5.2022 and then on 17.6.2022 and 5.12.2022.
(iv). The statement of PW-6, Sunil Chandra Tiwari (Investigating Officer) was recorded on 26.4.2023, 7.3.2024, 1.4.2024, 24.6.2024, 7.5.2025 and 16.5.2025.
(v). The said report also indicates that the case was fixed for cross-examination of PW-9, Vimlesh Kumar Maurya (Inspector) on 28.7.2025.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 24 that, “The aforesaid status report of trial indicates that the trial was delayed primarily due to the dilatory tactics of the counsel for the applicant. Although the delay can be attributed to the prosecution also.”
As things stands, the Bench then points out in para 25 that, “As argued by learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A., the prosecution evidence is complete and the same has been closed. The case is fixed for recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 6.8.2025, which indicates that trial is at its conclusive end.”
Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most sagaciously, the Bench then encapsulates in para 27 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the rival submissions and the fact that there is no new ground to grant bail to the applicant coupled by the fact that trial is at its conclusive end and dilatory tactics were adopted by the counsel of applicant during trial and the applicant having criminal antecedents to his credit including one filed by the jail authorities against him during trial, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.”
As a corollary, we then see that the Bench then deems it fit to hold in para 28 that, “The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then observes in para 29 directing and holding succinctly that, “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.”
Finally and for the sake of clarity, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 30 that, “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.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court was most forthright in denying bail to the murder accused advocate primarily on the ground of trial being delayed a lot by various “dilatory tactics” that had been adopted by the murder accused advocate himself. By and large, the Allahabad High Court was not very much impressed by the arguments that had been forwarded by the applicant-accused for being granted bail. So, it was but quite ostensible that bail was accordingly very rightly rejected by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishan Pahal of the Allahabad High Court. There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
