-
by Admin
08 April 2026 5:56 PM
“Lengthy incarceration without trial violates personal liberty under Article 21 — Bail cannot be withheld merely due to gravity of allegations.” - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant in a murder case involving Sections 302, 504, and 506 IPC, citing prolonged incarceration and uncertain trial timeline.
Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that despite the gravity of the charges, liberty under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed when the trial shows no signs of early conclusion. The Court emphasized the right to bail over long pre-trial detention, particularly when delay is not attributable to the accused.
The FIR was lodged on July 8, 2022, at Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun, under Sections 302, 504, and 506 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, Shahrukh @ Rinku, along with two co-accused, had an altercation with the informant's son over past enmity. Shahrukh was accused of shooting the deceased from behind, while the co-accused fired as well. The deceased died on the spot from gunshot injuries.
The applicant was arrested and had been in judicial custody since August 3, 2022. He filed the present bail application after his earlier requests had been rejected.
The main question before the Court was whether bail could be granted in a Section 302 IPC case involving direct firearm injury, when the trial was unlikely to conclude soon and the accused had already spent a significant time in custody.
“Trial Has Not Progressed Beyond Charge Framing — Bail Is Not Punishment”
The Court noted that although the charges are grave, the trial was nowhere near conclusion. Only one out of fifteen prosecution witnesses had been examined since the filing of the charge sheet on October 1, 2022.
The Court stressed: “It is well settled that pre-trial detention cannot be unduly prolonged, especially when delay is not attributable to the accused.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616, the Court reinforced: “Bail, not jail, is the rule and jail, not bail, is the exception — unless there is risk of tampering or flight.”
“Prosecution Version Disputed – Role of Applicant Requires Scrutiny During Trial”
The FIR implicated three persons, including the present applicant. However, the applicant denied the allegations and claimed false implication due to village-level rivalry.
The Court did not delve deep into the merits at the bail stage, but observed: “Without commenting on the merits, considering the nature of evidence and delay in trial, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.”
No Allegation of Tampering or Threats — Liberty Cannot Be Denied Indefinitely
The prosecution opposed bail, citing the severity of the offence and firearm use. However, the Court found no evidence of witness tampering or influencing the investigation by the accused.
The Court held: “Liberty of a person cannot be curtailed indefinitely in the name of pending trial when there is no apprehension of misuse of bail.”
The Court allowed the bail application with the following direction: “Let applicant Shahrukh @ Rinku be released on bail in Case Crime No. 446 of 2022… on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties… subject to the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.”
Further, the Court warned: “In case of breach of any condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.”
The Allahabad High Court’s decision affirms the constitutional mandate of speedy trial under Article 21 and holds that pre-trial incarceration, especially when prolonged and unfruitful in advancing justice, violates fundamental rights.
By granting bail even in a murder case involving firearm use, the Court emphasized that bail jurisprudence must balance between gravity of offence and the right to personal liberty, especially when delays are systemic and not due to the accused.
Date of Decision: 04/09/2025
