Harendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:103450
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused has been incarcerated for an extended period, faces no substantial risk of tampering with evidence or absconding, and the trial has reached its conclusive stage with prosecution witnesses already examined and having deposed against the accused, the advanced state of trial proceedings and absence of flight risk or evidence-tampering danger are material considerations against grant of bail, notwithstanding the period of custody served. Observations made by the court in disposing of a bail application, including assessments of the evidence led by prosecution witnesses, are limited to the question of bail and shall not bear upon or influence the court's consideration of the merits of the case during trial. A direction may be issued to the trial court to decide the case expeditiously where no legal impediment exists, as a consequential measure upon rejection of bail where trial stands at an advanced stage.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, 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. 265 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 351(3) BNS and 5(n)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
5. It is true that the applicant is uncle of the victim but the inordinate delay goes unexplained. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. Already five witnesses have been examined to date, as such, there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence or he being at flight risk.
6. The applicant is in jail since 26.7.2025, as such, the period of incarceration is ten months. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. The five witnesses examined in trial have deposed against the applicant. The trial is at its conclusive end.
CONCLUSION:
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that already five witnesses have been examined and they have deposed against the applicant; trial being at its conclusive end, 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.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible, if there is no legal impediment.
10. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free