| |
CDJ 2026 SC 344
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 21378 of 2025] |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Parties : Aadya Prasad Tiwari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ----- For the Respondents: ----- |
| Date of Judgment : 12-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B and 302 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
3. Summary:
The High Court of Allahabad had rejected the appellant’s bail application in a case registered under IPC 306, 120‑B and 302. The charge‑sheet was filed on 18 November 2021, with the prosecution seeking to examine 150 witnesses, of which only three have been examined. The court noted that the trial would be lengthy and the appellant did not appear to be the principal accused. It held that further detention was unnecessary. Accordingly, the appellate court set aside the lower court’s order, granted bail subject to conditions, and ordered the appellant’s release. The appeal was allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by the impugned judgment and order dated 14th October, 2025, has rejected the appellant's prayer for bail.
3. Appellant, figuring as an accused in FIR No.322 of 2021 dated 21st September, 2021 registered at Police Station George Town, District Prayagraj under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was arrested on 22nd September, 2021. However, the police report (charge-sheet) has been filed also under Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Charge-sheet was filed on 18th November, 2021. The prosecution proposes to record the evidence of 150 witnesses to drive home the charges against the appellant. As on date, only 3 witnesses have been examined.
6. It is, therefore, clear that the trial is likely to take time to conclude. Even otherwise, the appellant does not appear to be the principal accused.
7. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that further detention of the appellant pending trial is not necessary. The appeal, thus, deserves acceptance and the appellant may be admitted to an order for grant of bail.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
9. Appellant shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it.
10. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court.
11. In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
12. It is also ordered that the appellant shall diligently attend proceedings of the trial, unless exempted. If he abstains from attending the proceedings without justifiable cause, that could also be seen as breach of the conditions for grant of bail and the trial court will be free to pass appropriate orders.
13. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
