Shahid vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:105588
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A second bail application may be entertained and granted notwithstanding the rejection of a prior bail application by the same court, where material change in circumstances is demonstrated or fresh grounds are presented, and the applicant establishes that detention is not justified under the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a bail application under sections dealing with offences such as 366, 120-B, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC, the court must consider factors including the stage of trial, the quality and evenness of investigation, the fundamental right to speedy trial, the constitutional mandate of Article 21, and the systemic overcrowding of prisons with under-trials, in determining whether the applicant's continued detention is justified. Where there is uncertainty regarding the conclusion of trial, the investigation appears one-sided with the police ignoring the case of the accused, and the applicant is an under-trial prisoner, bail may be granted even without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charges. Breach of conditions imposed on bail may result in cancellation of bail by the court below.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record.
This is a second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application filed by the present applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39126 of 2024, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the bail application.
The applicant has filed this second bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 118 of 2024, under Sections 366, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
In support of this second bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the entire submissions made in the first bail application, which are not necessary to mention herein again by this Court.
Apart from the above, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer against the applicant and the Court concerned has also taken cognizance. He further submits that the trial of the case is proceeding at snail's pace as such there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of the court to the order sheet of the trial court's proceedings to demonstrate that even the trial has not commenced. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.09.2024 and therefore, submits that on the above grounds, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the Paragraph No. 53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant, Shahid, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 7, 2026
pks
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