# Netram v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 599
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17430 of 2024
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/netram-v-state-of-u-p-53949
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1 All. Netram Vs. State of U.P.
599
deceased, which is not possible in case of a suicide and which is only possible in case of
strangulation by some other person. Therefore, it appears that the deceased has been killed by
strangulation inside her matrimonial home. Although the daughter of the deceased has resiled from
her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the statement was videographed and, therefore,
it is apparent that the deceased?s daughter has turned hostile under influence of the applicant who
is her father and as per the statement of PW-2 who keeps on asking his daughter (PW-2) to help
him in coming out of the prison.

15. There are serious discrepancies in the statement of the PW-2 even while helping the
applicant as at one place she said that she had not seen anyone killing the deceased while at the
other place she said that two thieves had killed her. At one place she says that the two persons had
covered their faces and at another place she says that their faces were not covered. The story of
thieves having stolen away some jewelry is proved to be false from the inquest report which
mentions presence of jewelry on the dead body.

16. In these circumstances, prima facie, it appears that even while remaining incarcerated,
the applicant is influencing the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is accused of killing his wife
by strangulation in side his house. The hypothesis of suicide being projected by the defense
Counsel, is not supported by the horizontal ligature mark around neck of the dead body and this
mark suggests strangulation by some other person. The applicant is the husband of the deceased, he
is said to have absconded after the incident and he has not witnessed the inquest proceeding.
Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered
view that the fact of cause do not warrant enlargement of the applicant on bail.

17. The second bail application of the applicant is rejected.

18. It is clarified that the trial Court shall conclude the trial without being influenced by
any observation made in this order.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 599
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17430 of 2024

Netram ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether prolonged delay in trial and long incarceration of the accused (husband in a dowry death case)
entitles him to bail despite seriousness of the offence.
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) - Section 309 - Indian Penal Code (IPC) -
Sections 498-A, 304-B - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3, 4 - Constitution of India: Article 21
- Second Bail application - filed by accused-husband - FIR - offence of Dowery Death - dowry death of wife
within three years of marriage - investigation - charge-sheet - cognizance taken - trial initiated - first bail
rejected on merits - second bail pressed on ground of delayed trial and long incarceration - applicant pleaded
that only 5 out of 30 witnesses examined, trial court proceeding casually - State opposed citing gravity of
offence and evidence against accused - Court finds that, delay alone cannot justify bail in heinous offences
like dowry death - and held that, right to speedy trial is constitutional but must be balanced with societal
interest and gravity of crime - hence, bail rejected - direction issued to expedite proceedings, conclude trial
within three months and send monthly progress reports - applicant free to move fresh Bail Application if trial
not concluded within time. (Para - 20, 21, 22, 23)
Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
Hussain Ara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 INSC 92)
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10
Union of India v. Saleem Khan
Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R.S. Nayak AIR 1992 SC 1701
Ranjan Dwivedi v. CBI (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 945
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI AIR 2007 SC 451
Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda (2004) 3 SCC 75

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Dowry Prohibition Act - Constitution of India.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Bail application - Dowry death - Speedy trial - long incarceration - Grave offence - Article 21 - Delay in trial -
Judicial supervision - Expeditious disposal - Social crime.
.
CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 324 of 2022, Police Station Barkheda, District Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Upendra Kumar Singh.
Counsel for Respondent(s): AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

2. This is the second application for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant - Netram
with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.324 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B
IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Barkheda, District Pilibhit.
1 All. Netram Vs. State of U.P.
601

3. The first bail application of the accused-applicant was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 6.6.2023 on merits.

4. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that within three years of marriage, the daughter of the informant
was subjected to dowry death by her in-laws including the present accused applicant, who is the
husband of the deceased. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that a demand of additional dowry was
made to the deceased and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of the aforesaid
demand and when the demand was not fulfilled, she was hanged by all her in-laws. F.I.R. was
lodged on 5.8.2022 and investigation started which culminated into the charge-sheet and at present
the trial is going on.

5. The instant application for grant of bail has been moved on the ground of delayed trial and
long incarceration period of the applicant. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that
he has been languishing in jail since 26.08.2022. While disposing the first bail application of the
applicant, the learned trial court was directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and to conclude the
same preferably within a period of one year by this Court but till date trial has not been concluded.
In the instant case charge-sheet was submitted on 22.10.2022 and cognizance was taken on
21.11.2022 and after committal of the matter, trial started before the trial court and out of total 30
witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined till date. It is further submitted that the applicant is
an undertrial and the prosecution has miserably failed to produce witnesses before the trial court
vigilantly and the trial court is also proceeding with the trial in a casual manner resulting into a
long incarceration of the applicant without any fault on his part. The trial is delayed unnecessarily,
hence, the applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first
application for grant of bail of the applicant was rejected on merits by a detailed order passed by
this Court. The trial started in the year 2023 and at present it is pending for evidence and the trial
court is making sincere efforts and taking all the steps to procure the appearance of the witnesses in
this case. The evidence of witnesses of fact has been concluded and now trial is pending for
recording the evidence of formal witnesses only. The present accused applicant is the husband of
the deceased and dowry death of his wife has been caused in his own house by way of hanging and
there is ample evidence recorded during the course of trial which attributes the main role of causing
dowry death of the deceased, who was the only child of her parents, to her husband, the present
accused applicant. It is further submitted that the trial of this case is expected to be decided
expeditiously hence, there is no ground to allow the instant bail application and the same is liable to
be rejected.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused /
applicant and the learned State counsel and perused the record.

8. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is apparent from the perusal of the record and
copies of the order-sheet that the first date for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses was
fixed as 16.1.2023. Albeit it was a case relating to an undertrial but the learned trial court took no
pain to ensure the presence of the witnesses before it to record their deposition promptly and as a
matter of fact after 17.11.2023 when evidence of P.W.5 was recorded, no other witness turned till
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
date before the trial court to record his deposition and the copies of the order-sheet further reflect
that no effort was made by the learned trial court to ascertain their presence before the Court and
only stereo type orders were passed on subsequent dates. This made the present accused applicant
to appear before the Court from jail on each and every date without any fruitful proceedings on
ground. Even the mandate provided under Section 309 Cr.P.C. (Section 346 B.N.S.S.) was also not
paid any attention to and the Court took no interest or pain even to see whether the processes sent
to the witnesses had been returned to the Court or not and consequently the accused applicant was
compelled to move second application for grant of bail before this Court.

9. A perusal of the record reflects that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by
this Court vide order dated 6.6.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.20730 of 2023 and
the evidence on record and the complicity of the accused as well in the commission of the alleged
offence have been discussed in the aforesaid order. The earlier bail application of the accused
applicant was rejected by the Court after considering all the material facts, evidence on record and
circumstances of the case on merits.

10. The Courts in India have always been vigilant to protect the constitutional rights and
particularly the right to liberty of a person and this approach is echoed in a catena of decisions
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court as well viz : Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb
(2021) 3 SCC 713, Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and
Hussain Ara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98 and so on. The principle underlying
these decisions establishes that no person can be deprived of his constitutional right to liberty
which includes a speedy trial as well which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and for
an inordinate delay in trial, right to bail accrues in favour of an undertrial.

11. But in the facts and circumstances of the instant case it would not be proper that only on
the basis of delayed trial, the present second bail application of the applicant should be allowed. It
is a case of dowry death of a young deceased which was caused in her matrimonial house within
three years of her marriage by hanging. Accused-applicant is the husband of the deceased, the most
responsible person to protect his wife from all the dangers, legally and morally. While considering
the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant relating to the long incarceration of the
undertrial and delayed trial, in my considered view it does not, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, ipso facto entitle him to bail. Delay in trial, by itself, cannot be the sole ground to
enlarge the applicant on bail where the offence alleged is grave and punishable with upto life
imprisonment.

12. In Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2024 INSC 92 [Criminal Appeal
No.704 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10047 of 2023)], the Hon'ble Apex
Court found that bail was pressed on ground of delayed trial but the evidence on record prima facie
reveal the complicity of the accused as a part of the commitment of the offence and there were
chances and every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of this case which might
hamper the process of justice and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it was held
that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
1 All. Netram Vs. State of U.P.
603

13. It is a trite law that the right to speedy trial, though guaranteed as a valuable constitutional
protection under Article 21, cannot be stretched to a point where it overshadows the overwhelming
circumstances of guilt that stand against the accused at this stage. Delay in trial, though regrettable,
is not by itself a ground for bail in cases involving grave and heinous offences, particularly where
the evidence links the accused to the commission of the crime. It is also well settled that though
bail is the rule and jail an exception, the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the
accused and the societal impact of releasing an accused charged with heinous offences are relevant
considerations which cannot be overlooked. Hence, to uphold an accrual of right to bail of the
accused only on the ground of delayed trial will not be correct innunciation of law.

14. It also must be taken into cognizance of that the person behind the bar has no control over
the proceedings of the Court and this is the uncontaminated duty of the trial Court to make all the
sincere efforts for the production of the witnesses before it and the undertrial has absolutely no role
in the said procedure. The Courts must be aware of the fact that if the trial is delayed on account of
non-appearance of witnesses and the undertrial is only visiting the Court on each and every date
from jail only to put his signature over the order-sheet and get a new date and returns to jail to
further put his appearance before the Court on the next date fixed only to take another date. This is
a very sorry state of affairs to which every Court must take account of. A delayed trial is certainly
nothing else but a denial of justice and it should never be forgotten that speedy trial is a benign
right of the accused which must not be usurped in any condition. The Presiding Officer in the Court
does not sit only to adjourn the case but to ensure an effective proceeding and in this way the
Presiding Officer is a person most responsible for the production of witnesses and recording their
depositions before the Court. It is a denial of valuable right of personal liberty and the concept of
access to justice. That is the underlying reason in certain conditions like the present one, orders for
expeditious disposal of the case are passed by the High Court exercising its supervisory power
upon the Subordinate Courts and the instant case deserves the same treatment.

15. During course of submission a point arose that whenever a direction is issued to a
Subordinate Court for the expeditious disposal of a case, it creates panic upon the Presiding Officer
who is already overburdened with the huge pendency of cases before him and if such mandate is
passed in several cases the other works of the Court are certainly hampered and most of his time
and energy is engaged to ensure the compliance of the orders of the High Court.

16. The Court feels that whenever a direction is issued by this Court to the Subordinate Courts
for the expeditious disposal of a trial / case, it never means to create any panic to the Court
concerned. As a protector of the Constitution, this Court has a constitutional power and duty as
well to have a control over the functioning of the District Courts and also to issue proper directions
and guidance from time to time to the trial Courts as to in what manner a trial should be taken place
and also to remind the Subordinate Courts of their rights and duties. A direction for the expeditious
disposal of a case aims only to keep the proceedings of the Court moving in a right direction and
speed and it never intends to put the Presiding Officers in a state of stress or to make them upset.
The object and reason behind passing any order or any observation made by the higher Courts
should always be kept into mind by the Subordinate Courts, as held in Union of India Vs. Amrit
Lal Manchanda and Another, (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 75. It is strongly impressed upon
that an order passed for expeditious disposed of a case by this Court is binding upon not only the
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court / Presiding Officer concerned but upon all the stake holders viz : police and executive
officers, prosecution agency, staff, counsels, litigants etc. as well.

17. However, in the instant case, keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offence
and other relevant parameters for grant of bail, as mentioned above, I am of the view that at this
stage the delayed trial cannot be supposed to be a ground to allow this repeat bail application.18.
The aforesaid view of this Court finds support from the legal dictum promulgated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a very recent case of Gulfisha Fatima Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026
SCC OnLine SC 10 (delivered on 5th January, 2026) where the bail of the undertrial was refused
in a very serious offence under U.A.P.A. and necessity to maintain a balance between Article 21 of
the Constitution which protects a person's right to life and liberty and nature of the offence and law
prevailing thereon was impressed upon. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted
below.

"42. The approach of addressing delay-related concerns through calibrated judicial
supervision, rather than automatic enlargement on bail, stands reinforced by the decision of this
Court in Union of India v. Saleem Khan4. In that case, despite the accused having remained in
custody for over five years and the trial not having commenced, this Court declined to interfere
with the rejection of bail qua one accused, while upholding bail granted to another, thereby
reiterating that delay-based pleas must necessarily be adjudicated on an accused-specific footing.
Significantly, even while acknowledging the constitutional imperative of a speedy trial, the Court
did not eclipse the statutory rigour under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA but instead directed
expeditious conclusion of the trial and cautioned against any conduct on the part of the accused
that may further protract the proceedings. The decision thus affirms that prolonged custody,
though a matter of concern, does not operate as an automatic ground for grant of bail where the
statutory threshold continues to be attracted."..........

"56. ........................... Rather, delay serves as a trigger for heightened judicial
scrutiny. The outcome of such scrutiny must be determined by a proportional and
contextual balancing of legally relevant considerations, including (i) the gravity and
statutory character of the offence alleged, (ii) the role attributed to the accused within
the alleged design or conspiracy, (iii) the strength of the prima facie case as it emerges
at the limited threshold contemplated under the special statute, and (iv) the extent to
which continued incarceration, viewed cumulatively in the facts of the case, has become
demonstrably disproportionate so as to offend the guarantee of personal liberty under
Article 21."..........

"226. Delay can warrant a more searching constitutional scrutiny. But it does not
authorise the Court to dilute the statutory threshold by undertaking credibility findings. The
balance must be maintained: constitutional concern is real, but statutory restraint is equally
real. Where the prima facie threshold continues to be crossed, delay is met through
expeditious trial directions and continued judicial monitoring, not by negating Section
43D(5)."..........
1 All. Netram Vs. State of U.P.
605

19. Abdul Rehman Antuley Vs. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701 is another authority
on the point as to whether the accused should be released on bail if allegedly there has been
an unreasonable delay in the trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that whenever a complaint
of infringement of right to speedy trial is made the Court has to consider all the
circumstances of the case and it is not possible in the very nature of things and present day
circumstances to draw a time-limit beyond which a criminal proceeding will not be allowed
to go.

20. On the aforesaid subject, a co-joint reading of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court
in Ranjan Dwivedi v. CBI, (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 945, Ram Govind Upadhyay vs
Sudarshan Singh & Ors., 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu
Yadav Vs. CBI, AIR 2007 SC 451 reminds that the Courts ought to be cautious in its
approach in the interest of society in a matter which stands out to be a social crime of very
serious nature and other incriminating factors when delay in conclusion of trial is pleaded
and while paying attention to Article 21 which enshrines the fundamental right to individual
liberty, a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of
the society at the same time and the crux would be that no right can be absolute and
reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. No doubt an offence in the form of dowry
death is a social crime.

21. Hence, delay alone cannot justify grant of bail considering the gravity of the offence
and the restrictive statutory framework. Hence, it may be summed up that mere delay in trial
pertaining to grave offence as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to
grant bail. The second bail application of the accused applicant is hereby rejected.

22. However, the learned trial court is directed to make all possible endeavour to
expedite the trial of the case following the mandate provided under Section 309 Cr.P.C.
(Section 346 B.N.S.S.) and to conclude it expeditiously, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it. Trial court is
also directed to send monthly report regarding the progress of the case to the Registry of this
Court. If the trial is not decided within the aforesaid period, the applicant will be at liberty to
move another application for grant of bail before this Court.

23. This Court sincerely feels that that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake
holder in the justice delivery system or for trial and disposal of a case, but there are several
factors which create hindrance and obstructions in the smooth functioning of a Court and
sometimes derail the normal functioning of the Court viz. lawyers strike and non-cooperation
with the Court, lackadaisical approach of the prosecution agency, negligence on the part of
police / administrative authorities, incompetency of staff, conduct of the parties / witnesses
in a case in general creating obstruction in the judicial proceedings etc., hence, besides the
Presiding Officer concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities,
prosecution agency, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order
and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious
disposal of this case.
----------
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 1 ILRA 606
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32305 of 2025

Alok Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether accused should be granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who already bailed by the
Supreme Court.

Whether the other connected Criminal Misc. Applications filed by other co-accused's seeking quashing of
charge sheet and cognizance order are maintainable.

Whether criminal proceedings (Trial) are delayed due to interim protection orders granted in favour of the
co-accused.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections - 205, 317, 439, - Indian Penal Code
(IPC) - Sections - 120-B, 406, 420 - Second Bail application - connected with three Criminal Misc.
Application U/s 482 No. 1569/2025 and Criminal Applications U/s 528 BNSS No. 8780/2025 & 18833/2025 -
Bail Application filed against rejection of first bail - earlier first Bail rejected - FIR - alleging offence of illegal
seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs, threats, and corruption - investigation concluded, statements recorded - recovery of
Rs. 30 lakhs from accused and Rs. 14 lakhs from co-accused - charge sheet filed - cognizance taken - trial
initiated but delayed due to interim protection orders for co-accused - connected cases under Section 528
BNSS dismissed, interim relief vacated - applicant pleaded parity with co-accused granted bail by Supreme
Court and long incarceration - Court finds that, trial delay due to interim protection "no coercive action"
orders for co-accused, resulted charges not framed - parity principle applicable - law on quashing strict,
Section 91 CrPC not available at pre-trial stage, disputed facts to be tested at trial - held - Second bail
granted to applicant-accused for four months subject to strict conditions including attendance, non-tampering,
and surrender after expiry - hence, second bail allowed - but temporarily - other connected Criminal
Applications are dismissed - further, directions issued to trial court to expedite the trial proceedings - and
Registrar of High Court directed to communicate order to District Judge Gorakhpur accordingly. (Para - 26, 35,
36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47)

Bail granted but, Application is remained pending. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 - Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 - Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947) -
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 626).

LIST OF ACTS