Kalka Prasad vs State Of U.P.

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2023, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Poonchh, District Jhansi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on 25.04.2025 by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3909 of 2025 after considering the fact that applicant is the husband of the deceased and his wife has been murdered in her matrimonial home but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial court applicant appears to be innocent and even in the present matter applicant is in jail since 23.04.2023, i.e., for last more than three years and till date trial could not be concluded.

4. He further submitted that in the charge sheet there are about twenty-three witnesses but till date only seven could be examined and there is no chance of early disposal of the trial.

5. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased and his wife has been brutally murdered in his home and he could not explain the homicidal death of his wife.

7. He further submitted that law is settled that at the stage of bail, threadbare examination of the evidence of prosecution witnesses is neither permissible nor possible and therefore, on the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, this Court at this stage cannot form any opinion whether applicant is innocent or not.

8. He further submitted that however in the present matter applicant is in jail since 23.04.2023, i.e. for last three years and till date only seven witnesses could be examined but it cannot be said that the trial of the case is moving with languid pace.

9. He further submitted that even from para 22 of the affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application it reflects that on 27.06.2025 applicant moved an application to summon certain documents and therefore, it reflects that he himself is trying to delay the court proceedings.

10. He further submitted that even considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that he is facing trial under Section 302 IPC in which minimum punishment is life imprisonment, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail merely on the ground that he is in jail for last three years. He next submitted therefore, instant bail application should be dismissed.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that his wife has been brutally murdered in his house, i.e., in her matrimonial home.The second bail application has been filed by the applicant on two following grounds:

A). From the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial court it reflects applicant is innocent, and

B). In the present matter, applicant is in jail since 23.04.2023, i.e., for last more than three years and till date out of twenty-three witnesses only seven could be examined.

13. As far as first ground is concerned, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that at the stage of bail it is neither permissible nor possible to examine the prosecution evidence meticulously recorded before the trial court and this Court at this stage can not form any opinion that the applicant is innocent.

14. As far as second ground is concerned, however applicant is in jail for last more than three years and till date out of twenty-three witnesses it appears only seven could be examined but it is not necessary that entire witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet must be examined by the prosecution during trial.

15. Further, even considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that he is facing trial under Section 302 IPC, in which the minimum punishment is life imprisonment, in considered view of this Court it is not proper to release the applicant on bail merely on the ground of incarceration of three years.

16. In the view of this Court there must be some balance between the period of incarceration suffered by an accused, nature of allegations made against him, and punishment provided for the alleged offence.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, applicant could not make out a case to release him on bail.

18. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed.

19. However, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for the last more than three years, trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment, preferably within a year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

20. It shall be open for the applicant to renew his prayer for bail if within one year trial is not concluded, subject to the condition that applicant is not responsible for causing delay in the trial.

21. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned District Judge within within a week for necessary compliance.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Ankita