# Ramu v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 957
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 17912 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramu-v-state-of-u-p-52500
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

Criminal Law-The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 14, 21 & 39A -The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 304 &
439 -The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 - Section 341 - The Legal
Services Authority Act, 1973 - General
Rules
Criminal-Rule
37
-The
U.P.Jail
Manual, 2022-Rule 439(a),412(a) & 434-
The bail application of the applicant was heard
for the first time on merits and he was enlarged
on bail by this Court fourteen and a half years
after his imprisonment---Trial not concluded----
Prisoners belonging to the weaker sections of
the
society
or
facing
circumstances
of
undeserved want or suffering from acute
poverty or often do not have access to legal aid
and consequently are unable to file bail
applications
for
years
on
end----Statutory
Schemes for Legal Aid under Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987, Section 304 Cr.P.C./
Section 341 of BNSS, 2023, General Rules
(Criminal), Jail Manual Discussed----Duties of
District Legal Services Authorities, High Court
Legal Services Committee, St. Legal Services
Authority, District Judges/Sessions judges, Jail
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Superintendent/Competent Jail Authority, St.
Government discussed.

Bail application allowed. (E-15)

List of cases referred:,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,897 of 164,173. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39897 for what follows._

8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
957
vested with a right to grant relief of specific
performance same as Civil Courts and the
adjudication so done is in personam and not
in rem. What is understandable in the
present case is that the issues which were
referred
to
and
adjudicated
by
the
Arbitrator were the issues, which were
triable by the Courts of law as per Section
92 of the CPC.

48. Interestingly, the issue that the
dispute is not arbitrable also stands noticed
in the order dated 24.05.2024 in Arbitration
Case No.3 of 2024 while setting aside the
award dated 30.10.2023 and Arbitration
Case No.6 of 2024 wherein the interim
relief granted to the respondents on
21.01.2024 in the proceeding under Section
17 of the A & C Act, 1996 was set aside.

49. The question regarding the
maintainability of the proceedings under
Section 9 of the A & C Act, 1996 is not
being addressed by this Court in the present
proceeding, particularly when the dispute
relatable to the Trust itself was not
arbitrable and the arbitrator had no
competence to adjudicate the same.

50. Viewing the case from the fourcorners of law, we are of the firm opinion
that the order dated 29.05.2024 of the
Commercial
Court
rejecting
the
proceedings under Section 9 of the A & C
Act, 1996 cannot be said to be suffering
from any illegality or infirmity, warranting
interference in the present proceedings.

51. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 957
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 17912 of
2019
With other cases

Ramu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Abhishek Kumar Chaubey, Sri Ajay
Kumar Pathak, Sri Rahul Pandey, Sri Sadrul
Islam Jafri, Sri Ali Jamal, Sri Saumitra
Dwivedi, Sri Tanzeel Ahmad, Sri Shivendra
Raj Singhal, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri
Kunal
Shah,
Sri
Vinay
Saran
(Sr.
Advocatre), Sri N.I. Jafri (Sr. Advocate), Sri
Manish Tiwary (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, G.A.

Criminal Law-The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 14, 21 & 39A -The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 304 &
439 -The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 - Section 341 - The Legal
Services Authority Act, 1973 - General
Rules
Criminal-Rule
37
-The
U.P.Jail
Manual, 2022-Rule 439(a),412(a) & 434-
The bail application of the applicant was heard
for the first time on merits and he was enlarged
on bail by this Court fourteen and a half years
after his imprisonment---Trial not concluded----
Prisoners belonging to the weaker sections of
the
society
or
facing
circumstances
of
undeserved want or suffering from acute
poverty or often do not have access to legal aid
and consequently are unable to file bail
applications
for
years
on
end----Statutory
Schemes for Legal Aid under Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987, Section 304 Cr.P.C./
Section 341 of BNSS, 2023, General Rules
(Criminal), Jail Manual Discussed----Duties of
District Legal Services Authorities, High Court
Legal Services Committee, St. Legal Services
Authority, District Judges/Sessions judges, Jail
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Superintendent/Competent Jail Authority, St.
Government discussed.

Bail application allowed. (E-15)

List of cases referred:,

1. Maneesh Pathak Vs St. of U.P. 2023 SCC
OnLine All 649

2. Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar Vs St. of
U.P.2022 SCC OnLine All 623

3. Junaid Vs St. of U.P. & anr.2021 SCC OnLine
All 463

4. Ajeet Chaudhary Vs St. of U.P. & anr.2021
SCC OnLine All 17

5. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors.Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
(1978) 1 SCC 240

6. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I.& anr.(2022)
10 SCC 51

7. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 915
of 2023 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 352)

8. Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs St. of Mah. &
anr.2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693

9. Monish Vs St. of U.P. & ors.2024 (6) ADJ 361

10. Anurudh Vs St. of U.P. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 4880 of 2024

11. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs St. of U.P.
2023 SCC OnLine All 734

12. Noor Alam Vs. St. of U.P. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 53159 of 2021

13. Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation
1985 (3) SCC 545

14. Munn Vs Illinois 1877 (94) US 113

15. Kharak Singh Vs St. of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295

16. Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. (1978) 1 SCC 248
17. Hussainara Khatoon (IV) Vs Home Secy., St.
of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98

18. Queen-Empress Vs Pohpi & ors.ILR (1891)
All 171 (FB)

19. M.H. Hoskot Vs St. of Mah. (1978) 3 SCC
544

20. Khatri & ors.(II) Vs St. of Bihar (1981) 1
SCC 627

21. Suk Das Vs Union Territory of Arunachal
Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 401

22. St. of Haryana Vs Raghubir Dayal (1995) 1
SCC 133

23. Ram Dhani & anr.Vs St. of U.P 2021 (1) ADJ
376

24. Mohd. Hussain @ Zulfikar Ali Vs. St. (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) (2012) 2 SCC 584

25. Manglu Vs St. of U.P 2018 SCCOnLine All
5751

26. S. Yuvaraj Vs St. rep. By The Inspector of
Police, Gobichettypalayam 2023 SCC OnLine
Mad 3035

27. Darpaon Potdrain Vs Emperor 1938 (39) Cri
LJ 384

28. Ram Awadh Vs St. of U.P 1998 SCC OnLine
All 1234

29. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs St. of U.P. of
U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396 [Criminal Appeal
No.65 of 2022]

30. Navtej Singh Johar Vs U.O.I. (2018) 10 SCC 1

31. Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir Vs St. of U.P
2023 SCC OnLine All 734

32. Noor Alam Vs St. of U.P. 2024 (5) ADJ 766

33. Jitendra Vs St. of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.9126 of 2023)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)
8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
959

1 The judgement is being structured
in the following conceptual framework to
facilitate the discussion:

I
Introduction & Facts
II
Submissions of learned counsels for the parties
III
Denial of Legal Aid to the applicant and some
cases of similarly situated prisoners
IV

A
Right to seek
bail and scope
of
Bail
Jurisdiction

B
Legal
issues
arising in the
cases & Bail
Jurisdiction
V

A
Legal
Aid
:
General

B
Legal
Aid
:
Article 39A of
Constitution of
India
and
Constitutional
Law
VI
Statutory Schemes for Legal Aid:-

A
Legal Services
Authorities Act,
1987

B
Section
304
Cr.P.C./Section
341 of BNSS,
2023

C
General Rules
(Criminal)

D
Jail Manual

E
Decision
making process
for
grant
of
legal
aid:
Relevant
considerations
and availability
of
necessary
information
VII
Stand of the State Government : Instructions &
Affidavits
VIII

A
Right to Legal
Aid & Quality
of Legal Aid

B
Right to Legal
Aid & Right to
seek Bail : A
composite
scheme
IX
Charter of Prisoners'
Rights

X
Duties of the magistrates/trial courts/DLSAs/jail
authorities:-

A
Duties of the
magistrates/trial
courts

B
Duties
of
DLSAs

C
Duties
of
Secretary,
HCLSC

D
Duties
of
Secretary,
SLSA

E
Duties
of
District
Judges/Sessions
Judges

F
Duties of Jail
Authorities

G
Duties of State
Government

H
Registrar
General
of
High Court

I
High Court
XI
Right of fair & expeditious trial
XII
Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar Vs. State of
U.P.1

A
Post Script

B
Lessons drawn

C
The road ahead

XIII
Order
in
Bail
Application

XIV
Acknowledgements
of the role of the Bar
and the State

XV
Appendix

2. Freedom's dawn held unlimited
promise for all Indians.

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be
alive,

But to be young was very
heaven"2

3. The audacity of hope of the young
Republic was matched by the scope of
ambition of the newly adopted Constitution
resolved to secure justice to all citizens3.

4. The reality of independence is
more sombre for many Indian citizens. The
plight of a class of prisoners that emerges
from this discussion dims the ardour of the
fateful stroke of the midnight hour of
August 1947:
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"ये दाग़ दाग़ उजािा, ये र्ि-गर्ज़ीदा सहर
वो इन्तर्ज़ार था बजस का, ये वो सहर तो नहीं"4
"This patchy light, this night-tormented
dawn
What we waited for is not this morn"

I. Introduction & Facts:

5. In the simple facts of this case arise
questions
of
highest
constitutional
significance. The bail application of the
applicant was heard for the first time on
merits, and he was enlarged on bail by
this Court fourteen and a half years after
his imprisonment. The trial has not
concluded. The most consequential issues
of the human condition located in the
most inherent domain of the Indian
Constitution also arise in the companion
bail applications. On the morrow of 75th
year of the Constitution, constitutional
amnesia grips some spaces in the country.
While the nation celebrates the Amrit
Kaal of Azaadi, there is a class of Indian
citizens who lead anonymized lives in the
dark walls of prisons where the light of
Constitutional
liberties
does
not
penetrate.

6. Briefly put the records disclose the
following facts:

(a) The applicant was in jail since
14.02.2008.

(b) The first bail application was
dismissed as not pressed on 15.11.2008.

(c) The second bail application
was filed on 25.04.2019. (d) The matter
was listed from time to time but the bail
application was not pressed. On other
dates the matter was not taken up for
hearing.

(e) A listing application for
expediting the hearing of the matter was
filed on 07.08.2020.

7. The applicant was imprisoned on
14.02.2008 in connection with the criminal
case registered as Case Crime No. 44 of
2008 under Sections 394/302 I.P.C. Police
Station
Jahangirabad,
District
Bulandshahar. This Court dismissed the
first bail application of the applicant on
15.11.2008 by the following order:

"Sri
Anil
Raghav,
learned
counsel for the applicant states that the
applicant does not want to press this bail
application.

It is dismissed accordingly as not
pressed."

8. The applicant filed his second bail
application as an undertrial on 25.04.2019.
The
order
sheet
discloses
that
the
application was heard on merits for the first
time on 16.07.2022 and the applicant was
enlarged on interim bail on date. Sureties
imposed by the trial court could not be
provided by the applicant due to his
penurious condition and social exclusion.
Hence the applicant was not set forth at
liberty. This fact was brought to the notice
of this Court. The surety demands were
made commensurate to his socioeconomic
status
by
this
Court's
order
dated
21.07.2022. A fresh report was also called
from the trial court. The report dated
15.02.2024 sent by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar
records that the applicant has been set forth
at liberty pursuant to the interim bail
granted to the applicant by this Court.

9. Bail application was earlier argued
by the learned counsel for the applicant. On
later dates when the matter was taken up
for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the
applicant. This Court did not dismiss the
bail application for non prosecution in view
of the law laid down by this Court in
8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
961
Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P.5 The
Court appointed amicus curiae to represent
the applicant at the hearing of the bail
application.

II. Submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties

10. Shri N. I. Jafri, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Sadrul Islam Jafri,
and Shri Ali Jamal, learned counsels, Shri
Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Shri Saumitra Dwivedi, and
Shri Tanzeel Ahmad learned counsels, Shri
Dharmendra
Singhal
learned
Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Shivendra Raj
Singhal learned counsel, Shri Manish
Tiwary learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Atharva Dixit learned counsel, Shri
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel and
Shri Kunal Shah learned counsel were
requested to appear on behalf of the
respective applicant as amicus curiae and to
assist the Court on the constitutional issues
arising in these cases.

Counsels in connected bail
applications:

I. Shri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16379
of 2024 (Kamil Vs. State of U.P.);

II. Shri Dileep Singh Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14678
of 2024 (Muneesh @ Khajanchi v. State
of U.P.);

III. Shri Istiyaq Ali, learned
counsel assisted by Ms. Jagriti Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14084
of 2024 (Mumtaj v. State of U.P.);

IV. Shri Uma Datta Tripathi,
learned counsel for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17643
of 2024 (Vinesh v. State of U.P.);

V. Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla,
learned amicus curiae assisted by Shri
Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the
applicant
in
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.18960 of 2024 (Titu v.
State of U.P.);

VI. Shri Ram Krishna Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6287
of 2024 (Mintu v. State of U.P.);

VII. Shri N. I. Jafri, learned
Senior Counsel and Shri Vinay Saran,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Satish Sharma on behalf of the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21823
of 2024 (Saleem @ Chhukali Vs. State of
U.P.);

VIII. Shri Irfan Ali, learned
counsel assisted by Shri Ajit Kumar,
learned counsel on behalf of the applicant
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
17888 of 2024 (Pramod Kumar Vs. State
of U.P.);

IX.
Shri
Rajnish
Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the
applicant
in
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 19701 of 2024 (Sunil
Kumar Alias Chuhi Alias Sandeep
Kumar Vs. State of U.P.).

Shri
Ashok
Mehta,
learned
Additional Advocate General, Shri A. K.
Sand, learned Government Advocate and
Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned
AGA-I have represented the State.

11. On similar facts and common
legal issues learned amicus curiae and
learned counsels for parties in this case and
the companion bail applications made the
following submissions:

I. The applicant belongs to a
socially and economically marginalized
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
class of citizenry. He has no effective
pairokar to conduct his case.

II. The applicant was not apprised
of his right to seek bail by filing a second
bail application and lacked access to legal
aid to file the second bail application for
more than one decade. (Periods of delay in
the filing the bails vary in the respective
case. In many cases there was inordinate
delay in filing the first bail application for
the same reasons).

III. The bail application of the
applicant was not pressed diligently before
this Court in the absence of an effective
pairokar.

IV. Lack of legal literacy and
denial of legal aid despite the entitlement of
the applicant delayed recourse to the legal
remedy
of
bail,
and
caused
their6
unjustified incarceration.

V. Right of the applicant to legal
aid which is a fundamental right evolved by
constitutional law and also a statutory right
vested in them by virtue of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 19877, and under
Section 304 of Cr.P.C. has been violated.

VI. Members of the Bar also
submit that this problem is faced by many
prisoners in U.P. jails. The learned counsels
also highlighted non compliance of the
judgement of this Court in Anil Gaur @
Sonu @ Sonu Tomar vs State of Uttar
Pradesh8 in similar cases.

VII. Jail Superintendent has to
discharge their9 duties under Regulation
439 (a) of the Jail Manual10. The aforesaid
provision has been amended by Rule 412
(a) of the UP Jail Manual, 2022.

VIII. Submissions on merits were
prefaced by contending that the applicant's
inability to access legal aid raises legal and
constitutional issues directly affecting the
right to seek bail and the personal liberty of
the applicant. The adjudication of these
issues is within the scope of bail
jurisdiction.

12. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Shri A.K. Sand, learned Government
Advocate and Shri Paritosh Malviya,
learned
AGA-I
referred
the
relevant
statutes and constitutional law holdings on
the right to legal aid and the right to bail to
the Court.

13. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned
Additional Advocate General representing
the State emphatically contends that State
is unequivocally committed to uphold the
fundamental rights of prisoners to legal aid
as propounded by the Supreme Court in
various pronouncements and created by
various statutory provisions. In particular it
is submitted that the duties of jail officials
under the Jail Manual to realize the
aforesaid rights of prisoner are liable to be
implemented in letter and spirit. The
following submissions have also been made
on behalf of the State:

I. The State Government is
committed to providing legal aid to the
deprived and eligible classes of prisoners
and to uphold the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in this regard.

II. The State Government have
complied with its mandate under the LSA
Act, 1987. Posts contemplated in the LSA
Act, 1987 have been sanctioned and
endeavours have been made to provide
requisite infrastructure.

III. There is a need for strict
compliance of the judgment of Anil Gaur
(supra) by the concerned authorities upon
whom directions were made.

IV. The learned courts have to
faithfully implement their duties under
Section 304 Cr.P.C. to provide legal aid to
8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
963
prisoners who appear before them so that
the bail application can be filed and heard
without delay.

V. The Jail Superintendent under
Regulation 439 (a) of the Jail Manual/Rule
412(a) of UP Jail Manual, 2022 have an
obligation
under
law
to
make
recommendations for grant of legal aid to
prisoners to the DLSAs and trial courts
respectively without delay.

VI. The State Government shall
make endeavours to provide IT solutions
and infrastructure to enable the competent
State authorities to have easy access to all
relevant information necessary to discharge
their duties to provide legal aid to
prisoners.

VII. The State Government shall
ensure full coordination between different
departments for the abovesaid purposes.
The
LR/Principal
Secretary
(Law),
Government of UP, Director General
(Prisons), Director General (Prosecution)
and representative of Director General of
Police have also been heard through video
conferencing.

14. Learned Additional Advocate
General
has
called
attention
to
the
instructions sent on behalf of the State and
also the affidavits filed on behalf of the
respective
State
authorities
namely
LR/Principal Secretary(Law), DG (Prisons)
and Additional Director General of Police
(Technical Services). It is submitted on the
footing of the aforesaid affidavits that the
State Government is making all out efforts
to provide various facts and details
pertaining to prisoners to the jail authorities
in an auto-generated form to process grant
of legal in an efficient manner.

III. Denial of legal aid to the
applicant and some cases of similarly
situated prisoners

15. From the submissions made by
the learned amicus curiae and learned
counsel for the applicant11 and the records
of the cases these facts are most evident.
The applicant had no access to legal aid for
more than a decade (period varies in each
case) which resulted in delay in filing of
this bail application. The applicant is a
financially destitute person belonging to a
marginalized section of the society. The
applicant does not have any pairokar to
diligently prosecute his bail application
before this Court due to which the case was
not heard promptly. The accumulation of
these circumstances of want paired with
legal illiteracy and denial of legal aid
prolonged the detention of the applicant
and has led to a miscarriage of justice.

16. The failure of justice for want of
legal aid in the instant case is not a one off.
Denial of legal aid has many facets with
varied consequences. Prisoners belonging
to the weaker sections of the society or
facing circumstances of undeserved want or
suffering from acute poverty or often do
not
have
access
to
legal
aid
and
consequently are unable to file bail
applications for years on end. The resulting
deprivation of liberties of this class of
prisoners due to lack of legal aid is a
recurring feature which has been repeatedly
brought to the notice of this Court.

17. The other set of cases are where a
bail application is filed only to be left in the
cold storage. In the latter cases no efforts
are made to argue the matter or press for an
early hearing. These prisoners have no
contact with their counsels, and are not
aware
of
the
status
of
their
bail
applications. This class of prisoners does
not have effective pairokars or means of
oversight to ensure diligent prosecution of
their bail applications. Some cases of
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undertrials filing bail applications after
long delays which were brought in the
notice
to
the
Court
are
depicted
hereinunder as exemplars:

Sr.
No.
Case Title Particul
ars of
Case
Under
Sections
In Jail
Since
Date
of
reject
ion of
bail
by
trial
court
Date
of
filing
of
bail
befor
e the
High
Cour
t
Date
of
gran
t of
bail
by
the
Hig
h
Cou
rt
1.
Krishna
Kumar@
K.K. Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
29984
of 2018
Sections
302,
201, 377
IPC
02.11.20
11
25.07.
2012
07.08.
2018
20.1
2.20
23

2
Akil Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
31440
of 2023
Sections
147,
148,149,
452,
302,307,
34,
120B
IPC
19.04.20
12
13.07.
2022
10.07.
2023
Inter
im
bail
on
26.0
7.20
23

Bail
on
20.1
2.20
23
3
Kanhaiya
Pal Vs
State of
UP
Cri.
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
47521
of 2023
Section
302 IPC
06.12.20
13
05.03.
2014
31.10.
2023
25.0
1.20
24
4
Vinesh vs
State of
U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
17643
Sections
147,
148,
149,
302,
120-B
30.04.20
14
10.10.
2022
30.04.
2024
Inter
im
Bail
18.0
7.20
24
of 2024 IPC
Bail
on
07.0
8.20
24
5
Mukesh
Vs. State
of U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
12832
of 2024
Sections
147,
148,
149,
302,
506,
504,
120B
IPC
02.01.20
16
17.03.
2021
11.03.
2024
09.0
7.20
24
6
Ramandee
p Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Revision
Defectiv
e No.
848 of
2023
Sections
420,
467,
468, 471
IPC
As per
custody
report,
applican
t is in
jail for 5
years, 5
months
and 3
days
Appe
al was
dismi
ssed
on
22.09.
2022
03.01.
2023
14.0
6.20
23
7
Ramandee
p Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Revision
Defectiv
e No.
849 of
2023
Sections
406,
420,
467,
468, 471
IPC
As per
custody
report,
applican
t is in
jail for 5
years,
10
months
and 24
days
Appe
al was
dismi
ssed
on
23.09.
2022
02.06.
2023
14.0
6.20
23
8
Ramandee
p Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Revision
Defectiv
e No.
850 of
2023
Sections
406,
420,
467,
468, 471
IPC
As per
custody
report,
applican
t is in
jail for 4
years, 9
months
Appe
al was
dismi
ssed
on
23.09.
2022
02.06.
2023
14.0
6.20
23
9
Mintu vs
State of
U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
6287 of
2024
Sections
302,
307,
394,
411, 34
IPC
03.05.20
16
29.11.
2023.
13.02.
2024
Inter
im
Bail
on
24.7.
2024
Bail
on
07.0
8.20
8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
965
24
10
Daya Ram
Vs. State
of U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
13523
of 2024
Sections
302, 34
IPC
28.08.20
16
31.10.
2023
02.01.
2024
15.0
7.20
24
11
Akash Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
38204
of 2022
Section
307 IPC
05.10.20
16
22.07.
2022
05.08.
2022
11.0
1.20
23
12
Sunil
Kumar
Alias
Chuhi
Alias
Sandeep
Kumar
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
19701
of 2024
Sections
394,
302, 412
IPC
10.10.20
16
23.12.
2022
23.04.
2024
Inter
im
Bail
on
19.0
7.20
24
Bail
on
07.0
8.20
24
13
Sanjeev
Joshi Vs.
State of
U.P.
Criminal
Mic.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
22230
of 2024
Sections
302,
120B,
506 IPC
25.12.20
16
17.10.
2022
02.05.
2024
16.0
7.20
24
14
Irshad vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
App.
15389
of 2024
Sections
302,
452,
506, 34
IPC
06.02.20
17
04.05.
2023
16.04.
2024
15.0
7.20
24

15
Titu vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
App.
18960
of 2024
Sections
302, 201
IPC
10.08.20
17
01.02.
2024
01.05.
2024
Inter
im
Bail
on
19.0
7.20
24
Bail
on
07.0
8.20
24
16
Ashik Vs.
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
12175
of 2024
Sections
302, 34,
504, 506
18.10.20
17
06.01.
2018
20.03.
2024
15.0
7.20
24

17
Rehan @
Rihan vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
20315
of 2024
Sections
302, 201
IPC
29.12.20
17
29.04.
2024
16.05.
2024
08.0
7.20
24
18
Matthu
Kahar vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
24262
of 2024
Sections
376D,
506 IPC,
Section
3(2) 5
S.C./S.T
. Act
and
Section
5/6
POCSO
Act
31.01.20
18
22.04.
2024
24.06.
2024
30.0
7.20
24
19
Arjun
Nishad Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
2187 of
2024
Section
302 IPC
22.05.20
18
16.11.
2023
17.01.
2024
23.0
2.20
24
20
Anand
alias
Lakkad vs
State of
U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
22386
of 2024
Section
341,307,
302,34
and 504
IPC
04.12.20
18
25.03.
2019
28.05.
2024
19.0
7.20
24
21
Sanjeev
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
42220
of 2022
Section
498A,
304B,
323
I.P.C.
and
Section
3/4 of
Dowry
Prohibiti
10.06.20
18.
04.01.
2019
15.09.
2022
Inter
im
bail
on
11.0
7.20
23
bail
on
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on Act

20.1
2.20
23
22
Sachin Vs.
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
17484
of 2024
Sections
302,
120B,
34 IPC
22.09.20
18
08.01.
2024
26.04.
2024
15.0
7.20
24
23
Farookh
@ Montu
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
17291
of 2024
Sections
376(a)(b
) IPC
and 5/6
of
POCSO
Act
01.11.20
18
21.02.
2024
26.04.
2024
30.0
5.20
24
24
Ravi
Kumar
Gupta Vs.
State of
U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
53329
of 2023
Sections
147,
148,
149,
302,
120B,
34 IPC
02.11.20
18
09.10.
2023
06.12.
2023
16.0
7.20
24
25
Munna @
Jaheer
Ansari Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
1464 of
2023
Section
394 IPC
19.11.20
18
16.11.
2022
03.01.
2023
17.0
1.20
23
26
Bhawani
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
29480
of 2023
Sections
363, 376
IPC and
S. 3⁄4
POCSO
Act
28.11.20
18
18.01.
2023
28.06.
2023
Inter
im
bail
13.0
7.20
23
Bail
on
20.1
2.20
23
27
Bijendra
Singh Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
Section
8/22 of
NDPS
Act
17.12.20
18
26.05.
2022
09.11.
2022
05.0
1.20
23
51651
of 2022
28
Sunita Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
18902
of 2024
Sections
302, 201
IPC
29.12.20
18
22.02.
2023
08.05.
2024
09.0
7.20
24
29
Pramod
Kumar vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
17888
of 2024
Sections
498-A,
304, 302
IPC
25.01.20
19
16.02.
2024
03.05.
2024
Inter
im
bail
on
19.0
7.20
24
Bail
on
07.0
8.20
24
30
Amarpal
Vs. State
of U.P.
Criminal
Misc,
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
21189
of 2024
Sections
498A,
302 IPC
20.03.20
19
10.05.
2024
20.05.
2024
26.0
7.20
24
31
Sanni
Kumar Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
14467
of 2024
Sections
323,
376,
506,
354A,
394,
411, 511
IPC
20.03.20
19
23.02.
2024
04.04.
2024
22.0
5.20
24
32
Kamlesh
Prajapati
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
10153
of 2024
Sections
363,
366,
376,
368, 109
IPC and
S.3 / 4
POCSO
Act and
S.3(2)(v
) SC/ST
Act
01.05.20
19
26.02.
2020
04.03.
2024
01.0
5.20
24
33
Nurulhuda
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
Sections
363,
366,
376D
IPC and
24.06.20
19
21.11.
2023
05.01.
2024
21.0
5.20
24
8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
967
7583 of
2024
S. 5/6 of
the
POCSO
Act
34
Rupa
Choursiya
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
16716
of 2024
Sections
302,
201,
120B
IPC
26.07.20
19
22.09.
2019
25.04.
2024
09.0
7.20
24
35
Mohit @
Nemu
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
252 of
2024
Sections
302,
201, 34
IPC
12.12.20
19
27.09.
2021
03.01.
2024
23.0
7.20
24
36
Dhanush
Jogi Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
17390
of 2021
Sections
147,
148,
149,
302, 201
IPC and
10/14
DAA
Act
13.02.20
20
20.03.
2020
20.03.
2021
Inter
im
bail
on
03.0
7.20
23
Bail
20.1
2.20
23
37
Pintu @
Pankaj
Yadav Vs.
State of
U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
297 of
2024
Sections
323,
504,
506,
308, 304
27.07.20
20
29.11.
2023
03.01.
2024
23.0
7.20
24
38
Smt.
Aneeta
Vs. State
of U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
12100
of 2024
Sections
302, 34
IPC
17.09.20
20
19.02.
2024
07.03.
2024
23.0
7.20
24
39
Kirshan vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
App.
17810
of 2024
Sections
302, 34
IPC
24.08.20
20
10.11.
2020
01.05.
2024
08.0
7.20
24
40
Laxman
Criminal Sections 16.02.20 23.01. 01.07. 30.0
vs State of
UP
Misc.
Bail
App.
25159
of 2024
323,
504,
506,
325, 304
IPC
21
2024
2024 7.20
24
41
Indrajeet
@ Bhole
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
741 of
2024
Sections
363,
366,
376(3)
IPC and
S. 3⁄4
POCSO
Act
09.03.20
21
04.04.
2023
03.01.
2024
27.0
5.20
24
42
Usha Devi
vs State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
App.
20387
of 2024
Sections
302,
201,
120-B
IPC
25.08.20
21
02.03.
2023
13.05.
2024
08.0
7.20
24
43
Ram
Kishun
Yadav @
Chaku @
Sanjay
Yadav Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
18349
of 2024
Sections
302,
201,
120B
IPC
25.08.20
21
15.03.
2024
03.05.
2024
02.0
7.20
24
44
Laxman
Harijan
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
13442
of 2024
Sections
376AB,
506 IPC
and S.
5M/6 of
POCSO
Act
08.11.20
21
18.02.
2022
28.03.
2024
28.0
5.20
24
45
Shiv karan
Verma @
SikannaVs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
35903
of 2022
Sections
354Kha,
504, 506
IPC and
S. 9/10
of
POCSO
Act
15.01.20
22
07.04.
2022
08.08.
2022
28.0
1.20
23
46
Jyoti
Prasad urf
Daroga Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
12316
of 2024
Sections
363, 376
IPC and
S. 3⁄4 of
POCSO
Act
02.03.20
22
17.05.
2022
21.03.
2024
24.0
4.20
24
47
Mohamma
d Wasim
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
Sections
363,
366,
376, 323
08.06.20
22
02.11.
2022
06.06.
2023
12.0
6.20
23
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ion No.
26321
of 2023
IPC and
S.3/4
POCSO
Act
Second bail or subsequent bails filed before this Court
Sr.
No.
Case
Title
Particul
ars of
Case

Unde
r
Sectio
ns
In
Jail
Since
Date
of
reject
ion of
bail
by
High
Cour
t
Date
of
filing
of
bail
befo
re
the
High
Cour
t
Date
of
grant
of
bail
by the
High
Court
48
Saleem
@
Chhukal
i Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
21823
of 2024

Sectio
ns
302,
323,
504
IPC
20.06.
2012
08.07.
2022
28.0
5.20
24
Interi
m bail
on
01/08/
2024
Bail
on
07.08.
2024
49
Mumtaz
vs State
of U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
14084
of 2024

Sectio
ns
302,
201
IPC
06.05.
2015
09.02.
2017
22032024
Interi
m
Bail
on
18.07.
2024
Bail
on
07.08.
2024
50
Gaurav
@
Shilpi
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
54898
of 2022

Sectio
n 302
IPC
07.10.
2015
08.11.
2022

24.1
1.20
22
13.07.
2023
51
Deepak
Tiwari
Vs.
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
21468
of 2024

Sectio
n 302
IPC
26.05.
2016
18.11.
2019
20.0
5.20
24
05.08.
2024
52
Jabbar
Vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
2533 of
2023

Sectio
ns
363,3
66,32
8,
342,5
06,37
6-D
IPC&
5/6
POCS
O Act
08.08.
2016
28.11.
2017

12.0
1.20
23
19.01.
2024
53
Munees
h alias
Khajanc
hi vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
14678
of 2024

Sectio
ns
302,
120-B
26.09.
2016
20.07.
2021
01.0
4.20
24
Interi
m bail
on
18.07.
2024
Bail
on
07.08.
2024
Sr.
No.
Case
Title
Particul
ars of
Case

Unde
r
Sectio
ns
In
Jail
Since
Date
of
reject
ion of
bail
by
trial
court
Date
of
filing
of
bail
befo
re
the
High
Cour
t
Date
of
grant
of
bail
by the
High
Court
54
Abhima
nyu Kol
vs State
of UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
App.
17144
of 2024

Sectio
ns
302,
504,
506,
34
IPC
24.01.
2017
08.07.
2022

29.0
4.20
24
08.07.
2024
8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
969
55
Lavkus
h Kol vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
App.
35716
of 2023

Sectio
ns
302,
504,
506,
34
IPC
31.01.
2017
12.01.
2021

26.0
7.20
23
21.2.2
024
56
Lalit V.
State of
U.P.
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
20268
of 2024

Sectio
ns
302
307,
147,
148,
149
IPC
09.06.
2018
28.07.
2021
13.0
5.20
24
16.07.
2024
57
Gullan
Alias
Ajay vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
App.
16618
of 2024

Sectio
ns
302,
504,
120-B
IPC
21.01.
2019
14.07.
2022

16.0
4.20
24
09.07.
2024
58
Monu
Kumar
Jatav vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
6880 of
2024

Sectio
n 304
IPC
01.03.
2019
21.07.
2022
17022024
02.08.
2024
59
Kamil
Vs.
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
16379
of 2024

Sectio
ns
364,
302,
201
IPC
12.04.
2019
16.07.
2021
19.0
3.20
24
07.08.
2024
60
Shivcha
ndra Vs
State of
UP
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Applicat
ion No.
16606
of 2024

Sectio
ns
323,
324,
504,
304
IPC
02.04.
2020
01.09.
2021

23.0
4.20
24
09.07.
2024

IV A. Right to seek bail and scope of
bail jurisdiction

18. Right of bail is vested by virtue of
Section
439
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,197312 (and other provisions in
various special statutes).

19. With coming of the Constitution
and development of constitutional law, the
statutory domain of bails was transformed
into a constitutional jurisdiction. The right
to seek bail is derived from statute but
cannot be removed from constitutional
oversight.

20. The right of bail has statutory
origins but can never be isolated from its
constitutional moorings. The right of
consideration
of
bail
is
irretrievably
embedded in the fundamental right of
liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India by holdings of
constitutional courts.

21. The aforesaid authorities establish
the undeniable linkage between right of
bail and fundamental right to personal
liberty. Every prisoner has a fundamental
right to file an application for bail before
the competent court as per law and without
delay. (See Junaid v. State of U.P. and
another13 & Ajeet Chaudhary v. State of
U.P. and another14).

22. The discussion has the benefit of
good authorities which entrench the right of
an accused to seek bail in the charter of
fundamental
rights
assured
by
the
Constitution of India. Bail jurisprudence
was firmly embedded in the constitutional
regime of fundamental rights in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu
and
Others
Vs.
Public
Prosecutor,
High
Court
of
Andhra
Pradesh15. Casting an enduring proposition
of law in eloquent speech, V.R. Krishna
Iyer, J. held:

"1. Bail or jail?" - at the pretrial or post-conviction stage - belongs to
the blurred area of the criminal justice
system and largely hinges on the hunch of
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
Bench,
otherwise
called
judicial
discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic
and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the
order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is
one of liberty, justice, public safety and
burden of the public treasury, all of which
insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail
is integral to a socially sensitized judicial
process. As Chamber Judge in this summit
court I have to deal with this uncanalised
case-flow, ad hoc response to the docket
being the flickering candle light. So it is
desirable that the subject is disposed of
on basic principle, not improvised
brevity draped as discretion. Personal
liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is
too precious a value of our constitutional
system recognised under Article 21 that
the curial power to negate it is a great
trust
exercisable,
not
casually
but
judicially, with lively concern for the
cost
to
the
individual
and
the
community.
To
glamorize
impressionistic orders as discretionary
may, on occasions, make a litigative
gamble decisive of a fundamental right.
After all, personal liberty of an accused
or convict is fundamental, suffering
lawful
eclipse
only
in
terms
of
"procedure established by law". The last
four words of Article 21 are the life of
that human right."

23. The Supreme Court in Satender
Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another16 held that the
delays in hearing of the appeal may also be
considered as a sufficient cause for grant of
bail in appropriate cases. Relevant paras are
extracted hereunder:

"50. Sub-section (2) has to be
read along with sub-section (1). The
proviso to sub-section (2) restricts the
period of remand to a maximum of 15 days
at a time. The second proviso prohibits an
adjournment when the witnesses are in
attendance except for special reasons,
which are to be recorded. Certain reasons
for seeking adjournment are held to be
permissible. One must read this provision
from the point of view of the dispensation
of justice. After all, right to a fair and
speedy trial is yet another facet of Article
21. Therefore, while it is expected of the
court to comply with Section 309 of the
Code
to
the
extent
possible,
an
unexplained, avoidable and prolonged
delay in concluding a trial, appeal or
revision would certainly be a factor for the
consideration of bail. This we hold so
notwithstanding the beneficial provision
under Section 436-A of the Code which
stands on a different footing.

57. Thus, we hold that the delay
in taking up the main appeal or revision
coupled with the benefit conferred under
Section 436-A of the Code among other
factors ought to be considered for a
favourable release on bail."

24. More recently the interplay of
constitutional liberty assured under Article
21 and statutory right of bail of an
undertrial prisoner was affirmed by the
Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)17.

25. Lastly the Supreme Court in
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharasthra
and
another18,
while
iterating that delay in trials may also
constitute a ground for grant of bail held:

"7. Having heard the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on
record, we are inclined to exercise our
discretion in favour of the appellant herein
keeping in mind the following aspects:
8 All. Ramu Vs. State of U.P.
971

(i) The appellant is in jail as an
under-trial prisoner past four years;

(ii) Till this date, the trial court
has not been able to even proceed to frame
charge; and

(iii) As pointed out by the counsel
appearing for the State as well as NIA, the
prosecution intends to examine not less than
eighty witnesses.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we
wonder by what period of time, the trial will
ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime
may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as
enshrined under the Constitution of India.

9. Over a period of time, the trial
courts and the High Courts have forgotten a
very well settled principle of law that bail is not
to be withheld as a punishment.

19. If the State or any prosecuting
agency including the court concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the
plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed
is
serious.
Article 21 of
the Constitution applies irrespective of the
nature of the crime."

26. Engagement of fundamental rights
in bail jurisprudence is a constant in
constitutional law.

IV.B Legal issues arising in the
cases and bail jurisdiction

27. These questions arise for
consideration in the facts of this bail
application and in the companion bail
applications. What is the nature and scope
of the right to legal aid and the correlation
between the right to legal aid and right to
seek bail? What are the duties of
magistrates, trial courts, District Legal
Services Authorities19 and Jail authorities
to secure the right to legal aid and the right
to seek bail vested in the prisoners?

28. The determination of merits of the
bail will be predicated by a discussion on
the jurisdiction of this Court to address the
aforesaid issues while deciding a bail
application.

29.

While
sitting
in
bail
determination, this Court is not denuded of
its constitutional status.