# Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. 412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 411
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14940 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rana-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-412-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-53692
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

G.A., Shambhavi Nandan

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in
view
of
applicant's prolonged incarceration and the
grounds urged in second bail application, any
new and compelling circumstance exists to
justify grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C., despite
earlier rejection of bail on merits, particularly
when prosecution evidence stands substantially
concluded, trial is at its conclusive stage, and
applicant is alleged to have adopted dilatory
tactics during trial.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 504,
506, 302, 307, 336/34 - Arms Act, 1959 -
s. 27/30 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - ss. 231(2), 311, 313 - Applicant,
who is facing trial for serious offences and
presently
in
judicial
custody,
moved
second bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.
after his earlier bail plea rejected on
merits - It was submitted on behalf of
applicant
that
he
has
remained
incarcerated for considerable period and
trial has substantially progressed with
major portion of prosecution evidence
already
recorded,
hence,
continued
detention
is
no
longer
justified
-
Prosecution, opposed relief by asserting
that
applicant
previously
sought
adjournments on multiple occasions and
adopted
dilatory
tactics,
thereby
contributing
to
prolongation
of
trial
proceedings, and no fresh circumstance
exists
to

release
him
on
bail
-
Accordingly, prayer for bail required to be
examined
on
existence
of
any
new
ground, stage of trial, and conduct of
applicant.
Held: Trial record reveals that delay was
primarily due to the dilatory conduct of
applicant's counsel, though part of delay is also
attributable to prosecution - As contended by
learned counsel for informant and learned
A.G.A., prosecution evidence stands concluded,
and case is now fixed for recording accused's
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. signifying that trial is
nearing its conclusion - Learned Senior Counsel
for applicant submitted that application u/s
231(2) and 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of
PW-6, was rejected by trial court and is to be
challenged before High Court - Though such
action may further delay trial, delay cannot be
attributed to prosecution - Considering rival
submissions, absence of any new ground for
bail, near conclusion of trial, dilatory tactics
adopted by applicant's counsel and applicant's
criminal antecedents including one lodged by jail
authorities during trial, thus, no ground to grant
bail to applicant - Bail application, being devoid
of merit, is hereby rejected. [Paras 24 to 28] (E13)
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC
712; X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported
in 2024 INSC 909; Vinod Kumar v. State of
Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220; Hussain and
Another v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702
- referred to

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Arms Act, 1959; Constitution of India,
1950

List of Keywords
Second
bail
application;
Incarceration;
Advocate; Article 21; Discharge application;
Prosecution evidence is complete; Stage of trial;
Delayed primarily due to accused; Fresh / New
ground; Dilatory tactics; Rejection on merits;
Criminal
antecedents;
Statement
of
other
witnesses; Charge framed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. - 14940 of 2023

From Judgment and Order of Special Judge
(E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Azamgarh
8 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
413
in Case Crime No.81 of 2019 in Sessions Trial
No.237 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Shambhavi Nandan

## Text

8 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
411
against any and all kinds of accusations
likely or unlikely. On the facts of the case,
considered in the background of the legal
position set out above, this does not prima
facie appear to be a case where any order in
terms of Section 438 of the Code can be
passed."

16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , this
Court (of which both of us were parties)
considered the scope of granting relief
under Section 438 vis-a-vis a person who
was
declared
as
an
absconder
or
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as
under : (SCC p. 733)

"12. From these materials and
information, it is clear that the present
appellant
was
not
available
for
interrogation and investigation and was
declared as 'absconder'. Normally, when
the accused is 'absconding' and declared as
a 'proclaimed offender', there is no
question of granting anticipatory bail. We
reiterate that when a person against whom a
warrant had been issued and is absconding
or concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail."

It is clear from the above decision
that
if
anyone
is
declared
as
an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail."

7. Recently, Hon?ble Apex Court,
relying upon decision of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Pradeep Sharma (supra) as well as
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra)
has held in the matter of Prem Shanker
Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and
another reported in 2022 (14) SCC 516,
that
if
any
one
is
declared
absconder/proclaimed offender in term of
Section 82 Cr.P.C., is not entitled to relief
of anticipatory bail even in the business
transaction also there may be offences
under I.P.C. more particularly Sections
406, 420, 467, 468 etc. what is required to
be considered is nature of allegation and
accusation and not that nature of accusation
arising out of a business transaction.

8. In the instant case, perusal of the
record shows that specific allegation has
been levelled against the applicant in
commission of offence and that the
accused-applicant is absconding till date,
against whom proclamation under Section
82
Cr.P.C.,
has
also
been
issued,
considering the settled principle of law
regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, nature
of accusation, role of applicant and all
attending facts and circumstances of the
case, without expressing any opinion on
merit of the case, no case for anticipatory
bail is made out.

9. The anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 411
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14940 of
2023

Rana Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Shambhavi Nandan

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in
view
of
applicant's prolonged incarceration and the
grounds urged in second bail application, any
new and compelling circumstance exists to
justify grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C., despite
earlier rejection of bail on merits, particularly
when prosecution evidence stands substantially
concluded, trial is at its conclusive stage, and
applicant is alleged to have adopted dilatory
tactics during trial.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 149, 504,
506, 302, 307, 336/34 - Arms Act, 1959 -
s. 27/30 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - ss. 231(2), 311, 313 - Applicant,
who is facing trial for serious offences and
presently
in
judicial
custody,
moved
second bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.
after his earlier bail plea rejected on
merits - It was submitted on behalf of
applicant
that
he
has
remained
incarcerated for considerable period and
trial has substantially progressed with
major portion of prosecution evidence
already
recorded,
hence,
continued
detention
is
no
longer
justified
-
Prosecution, opposed relief by asserting
that
applicant
previously
sought
adjournments on multiple occasions and
adopted
dilatory
tactics,
thereby
contributing
to
prolongation
of
trial
proceedings, and no fresh circumstance
exists
to

release
him
on
bail
-
Accordingly, prayer for bail required to be
examined
on
existence
of
any
new
ground, stage of trial, and conduct of
applicant.
Held: Trial record reveals that delay was
primarily due to the dilatory conduct of
applicant's counsel, though part of delay is also
attributable to prosecution - As contended by
learned counsel for informant and learned
A.G.A., prosecution evidence stands concluded,
and case is now fixed for recording accused's
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. signifying that trial is
nearing its conclusion - Learned Senior Counsel
for applicant submitted that application u/s
231(2) and 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of
PW-6, was rejected by trial court and is to be
challenged before High Court - Though such
action may further delay trial, delay cannot be
attributed to prosecution - Considering rival
submissions, absence of any new ground for
bail, near conclusion of trial, dilatory tactics
adopted by applicant's counsel and applicant's
criminal antecedents including one lodged by jail
authorities during trial, thus, no ground to grant
bail to applicant - Bail application, being devoid
of merit, is hereby rejected. [Paras 24 to 28] (E13)
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC
712; X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported
in 2024 INSC 909; Vinod Kumar v. State of
Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220; Hussain and
Another v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702
- referred to

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Arms Act, 1959; Constitution of India,
1950

List of Keywords
Second
bail
application;
Incarceration;
Advocate; Article 21; Discharge application;
Prosecution evidence is complete; Stage of trial;
Delayed primarily due to accused; Fresh / New
ground; Dilatory tactics; Rejection on merits;
Criminal
antecedents;
Statement
of
other
witnesses; Charge framed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. - 14940 of 2023

From Judgment and Order of Special Judge
(E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Azamgarh
8 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
413
in Case Crime No.81 of 2019 in Sessions Trial
No.237 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Shambhavi Nandan
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh and
Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior counsels
assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for applicant and Dr. S.B.
Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Shambhavi Nandan, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has
been filed by the applicant in Sessions Trial
No.237 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime
No.81 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 504, 506, 302, 307, 336/34 I.P.C. and
27/30 Arms Act, Police Station- Devgaon,
District- Azamgarh with the prayer to
enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application
on behalf of the applicant. The first bail
application was rejected by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated
14.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.55798 of 2019 and the
following order was passed:-

"Supplementary
affidavit
filed
today is taken on record.

Before arguing on the bail
application, learned counsel for the first
informant placed before this court an order
dated 07.09.2020 passed by the coordinate
bench of this Court, wherein it is mentioned
that in presence of both the parties after
conclusion of arguments on the bail
application, the bail application came to be
rejected. Thereafter, on the same day, an
application was handed over to the Private
Secretary of the Court at about 4.45 p.m.
requesting for rehearing the matter citing
glitches in the video conferencing. The
objection was not raised during the course
of the argument. The copy of that
application was supplied without serving a
copy of the same to the learned A.G.A. or
the learned counsel for the first informant,
so it was observed by that bench that the
practice adopted by the learned counsel for
the applicant was objectionable and it was
found that as the court had expressed its
opinion, it would not be proper for the
court to rehear the matter afresh and the
matter was fixed for 15th September, 2020
before the appropriate court. It was also
noted that the matter shall not be treated as
part heard or tied up to the bench.

When I went through the record,
it was found that there is no bail order on
record. It was admitted by both the counsel
that though, the order was dictated to the
Private Secretary but it was not typed and
before
the
order
being
typed
the
application was moved for rehearing of the
matter and on that application the above
order dated 07.09.2020 was passed.

Thus, it is clear that the bail
application was not disposed of and as the
bench has been changed and the bail
application is being heard afresh, so the
application moved in this regard on
07.09.2020 shall be considered disposed of.

With the consent of learned
counsel for the applicant and learned
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the first informant, the bail
application of the applicant - Rana Pratap
Singh is heard afresh.

The
bail
application
under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the
applicant - Rana Pratap Singh to enlarge
him on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2019
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506,
302, 307, 336/34 I.P.C. and 27/30 Excise
Act, Police Station Devgaon, District
Azamgarh.

It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the incident
is dated 07.04.2019 at 10.00 am, the FIR
has been lodged on the same day at 21.18
hours. This delay of 11 hours is not
properly explained. As per FIR the present
applicant is said to have fired at Anil
Singh, which resulted into his death and the
fire of Nitesh Singh is said to have hit
Divyanshu, who got injured by that fire.
Admittedly, out of nine named accused
persons, three persons Veer Bahadur
Singh, Durgesh Singh and Pappu Singh
have been exonerated during investigation
and out of rest accused persons, who have
been chargesheeted, except the present
applicant, all have been bailed out by the
coordinate bench of this Court. So, it is
argued that as three accused persons have
been
exonerated
at
the
stage
of
investigation, the evidence of the informant
was not found reliable by the Investigating
Officer. It is also argued that as per site
plan, the distance between the house of the
parties is 30-35 paces and as per post
mortem report, on injury no. 1 blackening
is found. If the fire was made from a
distance of 30-35 paces the blackening on
the wound was not possible. Again, it was a
sudden quarrel. There was no intention to
cause the death of any person. Maximum
the case can be considered under Section
304 IPC. It is further argued that during
incarceration period of the applicant lost
his one son-in-law who died during Covid.
The marriage of his second daughter is
fixed on 2nd December, 2022. His criminal
history of one case has been well explained
that he has been acquitted in that case on
12.04.2022. The statements of the witnesses
of fact have been recorded in the trial
court. The accused is languishing in jail
since 09.04.2019. Hence, prayer for bail is
made.

The prayer of bail is opposed by
the learned counsel for the first informant.
It is submitted by him that the case of the
present accused is distinguishable from all
the other accused persons, as this is the
main assailant, who had made the fire from
his licensee gun and the fire hit Anil Singh
resulting into his death. This licensee gun
has been recovered by the police from the
possession of the applicant. The FSL report
is available on record. It is pointed out by
the learned counsel for the first informant
that four empty cartridges which were
marked as EC 1, 2, 3 and 4, were found to
be discharged from the licensee gun of the
present applicant. The statement of the
injured Divyanshu is also on record,
wherein he has stated that when the
construction was in progress in the house
of the first informant, the present applicant
along with his brother tried to intervene
and when the matter was resisted, the
present applicant and all the accused
persons started abusing and pelting stones.
During this period, when all the accused
started firing, the present applicant ran
towards his house and from his roof top he
made a fire from his licensee gun aiming
Anil, who fell down on the ground. The
injured was taken to the hospital, he was
referred for Varanasi and there he was
declared brought dead.
8 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
415

Further, the attention of the court
is drawn towards the site plan of Original
Civil Suit No. 1082 of 1992, Rana Pratap
Singh Vs. Shiv Murat and Ram Murat,
wherein the pathway between both the
houses is shown to be 09 feet wide. It is
argued that this mid way of 09 feet with the
connivance of the applicant, who happens
to be lawyer, is shown in the site plan as 35
paces. Just to create pressure upon the first
informant and his family members on
13.05.2019 an FIR No. 133/2019 was
lodged against them by the accused
Shailendra Pratap Singh. On the basis of
judgement of Apex Court in Sadayappan @
Ganesan
Vs.
State,
represented
by
Inspector of Police, 2019 3 SCC (Cri) 843,
it is argued that as the post mortem report
and chemical analysis report confirm the
gun shot, the ownership of the alleged gun,
which was recovered at the instance of the
applicant, is not disputed, hence bail
application is prayed to be rejected.

It is, however, argued by the
learned counsel for the first informant that
as per FIR, only single fire is attributed to
the present applicant, while as per FSL
report,
four
empty
cartridges
were
produced there. As per post mortem report,
total six injuries were found on the person
of the deceased including five fire arm
entry wounds, so the prosecution cannot
take benefit of the FSL report.

From perusal of the record, the
case of present applicant appears to be
distinguishable from that of the other
accused persons as the role of causing
death of Anil is attributed to the present
applicant only. Out of five fire wounds, as
per post mortem report, blackening is
found only on one injury, while in the rest
fire injuries, no blackening or tattooing is
found. As per FSL report, the empty
cartridge is found to be fired from the
licensee gun of the present applicant.
Divyanshu, the injured person, whose
presence cannot be denied on the spot, has
also confirmed the version of the first
information report. The present applicant
is the main assailant.

Thus, after perusing the record in
the light of submission advanced at the bar,
taking overall view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of
accusation and the period of detention
already undergone without commenting on
the merit of the case, I do not find it a fit
case for bail.

The bail application is hereby
rejected."

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT:

5. The present bail application is being
pressed on the new ground of period of
incarceration as the applicant is languishing
in jail since 9.4.2019, as such, he is
incarcerated for about 06 years and 04
months. The fundamental rights of the
applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India stand violated.

6. Much reliance has been placed on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb,
AIR 2021 SC 712, wherein it has been
observed as under:-

"We are conscious of the fact that
the charges levelled against the respondent
are grave and a serious threat to societal
harmony. Had it been a case at the
threshold, we would have outrightly turned
down the respondent's prayer. However,
keeping in mind the length of the period
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
spent
by
him
in
custody
and
the
unlikelihood of the trial being completed
anytime soon, the High Court appears to
have been left with no other option except
to grant bail."

7. The applicant is an advocate and his
criminal antecedents have been explained
which were minor offences. He is neither a
hardened criminal nor a flight risk.

8. The witnesses of fact have already
been examined and there is no likelihood of
the applicant tampering with evidence.
Only the Investigating Officer, PW-9
remains to be cross-examined by the
counsel of the applicant.

9. As far as merits of the case are
concerned, it is alleged that applicant had
fired from a distance of 30-35 paces, as
such, the distance must be about 70-75 feet.
The postmortem report falsifies the said
story of the prosecution as the injury no.1
indicates blackening from which it can be
inferred that the distance of firing must be
less than 8-10 feet.

10. The Investigating Officer was
examined
as
PW-6
in
trial.
The
opportunity to cross-examine him by
several accused persons has been closed
by the trial judge. The counsel for the
applicant had filed an application to
recall the said witness PW-6 by invoking
powers U/s 231(2) and 311 Cr.P.C. and
the same has been rejected by the trial
court vide order dated 4.8.2025.

11. The applicant has to challenge the
said order dated 4.8.2025 as the valuable
right of the applicant to cross-examine one
of the most important witness, who
happens to be the Investigating Officer,
stands violated.

12. There were three other injured
persons in the instant case, namely, Arun,
Divyanshu and Shivchand Saroj and the
star eye-witnesses have been withheld by
the
prosecution
as
they
have
been
discharged by moving an application on
10.3.2022.

13. The applicant is ready to cooperate
with trial. In case, the applicant is released
on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
INFORMANT:

14. The present bail application has
been opposed by learned counsel for the
informant on the ground that in the instant
case the first charge-sheet was filed on
8.7.2019 against five accused persons
including the applicant. The second chargesheet was filed against two other accused
persons. The charge was framed on
8.8.2019 against the accused persons
mentioned
in
the
first
charge-sheet
including the applicant and the charge
against
the
other
accused
persons
mentioned in the second charge-sheet was
framed on 4.1.2021.

15. The applicant and other accused
persons had repeatedly tried to interfere in
the administration of justice as they had
adopted every dilatory tactics to get the
matter adjourned on one pretext or another.
The statement of witnesses could not be
completed as the case was adjourned at the
behest of counsel of the applicant and other
accused persons.

16. The cross-examination of PW-1
was adjourned on 13 occasions and even
the statement of other witnesses were also
not recorded due to the adjournments at the
8 All. Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
417
behest of counsel of accused persons. The
cross-examination of PW-9 was complete
on 31.7.2025 and the case was fixed for
recording of statement of accused persons
U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 2.8.2025.

17. An application no.158-Kha was
moved U/s 231(2) and 311 Cr.P.C. for reexamination of PW-6, Sunil Chandra
Tiwari (Investigating Officer). The said
application was dismissed by the trial court
vide order dated 4.8.2025 and the case has
been fixed for recording of statement of
accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 6.8.2025, i.e.
tomorrow.

18. The applicant is a notorious person
with criminal state of mind as he used to
threat witnesses and other persons by using
his mobile in jail premises and an FIR
No.364 of 2022 was instituted against the
applicant U/s 42 & 43 of the Prisons Act,
1894 for the reason that applicant used to
call several persons from jail, as such, he
was transferred from Azamgarh jail to
Pilibhit jail. This forced the prosecution to
give up their injured witnesses.

19. The prosecution evidence is
complete and the witnesses have deposed
against the applicant, as such, he is not
entitled for bail rather the trial may be
expedited stipulating some fixed time
period for its disposal.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
STATE:

20. It is argued by learned A.G.A. that
the trial is at its conclusive end and the case
is fixed for recording of statement of
accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and much reliance
has been placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC
909, wherein it has been held that once the
trial has commenced, it should be allowed
to reach to its final conclusion, which may
either result in conviction or acquittal of the
accused. The bail should not be normally
granted to the accused after the charge has
been framed. It should also not be granted
by looking into the discrepancies here or
there in the deposition.

21. It is further argued by learned
A.G.A. that the said arguments regarding
distance and blackening of injury no.1 were
argued at the time of adjudication of first
bail application of the applicant and there is
no new ground for granting bail to the
applicant.

22. It is also argued that the
application for discharging the three injured
witnesses as mentioned by learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant was also filed by
the prosecution well before the disposal of
said bail application dated 14.11.2022.

STATUS OF TRIAL:

23. This Court had called for status
report of trial from the concerned trial
court. The report of Special Judge (E.C.
Act)/Additional Session Judge, Azamgarh
dated 25.7.2025 indicates as follows:-

(i). The examination-in-chief of
PW-1 was recorded on 31.10.2019 and he
was partially cross-examined on 17.1.2020.
After the committal of another Session
Trial No.109 of 2020 and the instant
Session Trial No.237 of 2019 were
consolidated and de-novo trial was started.
As such, examination-in-chief of PW-1 was
again recorded on 7.9.2021. The crossexamination of PW-1 by the counsel of the
applicant
was
done
on
14.10.2021,
26.10.2021,
28.10.2021,
8.11.2021,
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15.11.2021,
23.11.2021,
24.11.2021,
3.12.2021 and it could be concluded on
6.12.2021.

(ii). The statement PW-2 was
recorded on 22.2.2022, 23.2.2022 and
24.2.2022.

(iii). The statement of PW-4 was
recorded
on
9.5.2022
and
then
on
17.6.2022 and 5.12.2022.

(iv). The statement of PW-6,
Sunil
Chandra
Tiwari
(Investigating
Officer) was recorded on 26.4.2023,
7.3.2024, 1.4.2024, 24.6.2024, 7.5.2025
and 16.5.2025.

(v). The said report also indicates
that the case was fixed for crossexamination of PW-9, Vimlesh Kumar
Maurya (Inspector) on 28.7.2025.

CONCLUSION:

24. The aforesaid status report of
trial indicates that the trial was delayed
primarily due to the dilatory tactics of the
counsel for the applicant. Although the
delay can be attributed to the prosecution
also.

25. As argued by learned counsel for
informant
and
learned
A.G.A.,
the
prosecution evidence is complete and the
same has been closed. The case is fixed
for recording of statement of accused U/s
313 Cr.P.C. on 6.8.2025, which indicates
that trial is at its conclusive end.

26. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has argued that the application
no.158-Kha moved by the applicant U/s
231(2)
and
311
Cr.P.C.
for
reexamination of PW-6, Sunil Chandra
Tiwari
(Investigating
Officer)
was
rejected by the trial court vide order dated
4.8.2025 and it has to be challenged
before this Court. The said act shall
further delay the adjudication of trial but
the said delay cannot be attributed to the
prosecution.

27. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, taking into consideration the
rival submissions and the fact that there
is no new ground to grant bail to the
applicant coupled by the fact that trial is
at its conclusive end and dilatory tactics
were
adopted
by
the
counsel
of
applicant during trial and the applicant
having criminal antecedents to his
credit including one filed by the jail
authorities against him during trial, I do
not find it a fit case for grant of bail to
the applicant.

28. The bail application is found
devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.

29. However, it is directed that the
aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously in view of
the principle as has been laid down in the
recent judgments of the Supreme Court in
the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of
Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017)
5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.

30.
It
is
clarified
that
the
observations made herein are limited to
the facts brought in by the parties
pertaining
to
the
disposal
of
bail
application and the said observations
shall have no bearing on the merits of the
case during trial.
----------
8 All. Pradeep Kumar Dubey Vs. Ram Chandra Asthana
419
(2025) 8 ILRA 419
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2025

Pradeep Kumar Dubey ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Chandra Asthana ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Abhinav Narayan Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shyam Mohan Pradhan, Abhinav Singh,
Pooja Singh, Shashank Singh

Issue for Consideration
The Hon'ble Contempt Court while passing the
impugned order dated 14.08.2025 has directed
the appellant to appear on 01.09.2025 for
orders on sentence without recording any
finding that the disobedience, if any, was willful,
intentional, knowingly, calculated
and not
casual, accidental, bona fide or any intentional
act or genuine inability or negligent act or with a
justifiable excuse

Head Notes
The
Contempt of
Courts
Act,
1971-
Sections 12 & 19 - Impugned order
though not an order of punishment but it
is of such a nature that is tantamount to
entail punishment - Date fixed 01.09.2025
for sentence meaning thereby that the
punishment
has
already
been
made
definite - No opportunity afforded to the
appellant file his response to the charge
framed against him - Impugned order
modified to the extent that a week's time
be granted to the appellant herein to file
response to the charge framed against
him and thereafter fix the case for orders.
Petition disposed of.

Held- Impugned
order dated
14.08.2025
though not an order of punishment but at the
same time, it is of such a nature that is
tantamount to entail punishment - Perusal of
the aforesaid order reflects that the learned
Single Judge has fixed 01.09.2025 for sentence
meaning thereby that the punishment has
already been made definite - The appellant has
not been afforded due opportunity to file his
response to the charge framed against him,
without
adverting
on
the
question
of
maintainability or otherwise on the merits of
the case, the impugned order may be
modified only to the extent that a week's time
be granted to the appellant herein to file
response to the charge framed against him
and thereafter fix the case for orders. (Para
9, 10 & 11) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Subhash Chandra versus Srikant Goswami
Posted Managing Director, Sahkari Gram Vikas
Bank Ltd. and Others 2024 SCC OnLine All
5435; Ajay Kumar Bhalla and others versus
Prakash Kumar Dixit, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1874;
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others
versus Chunnilal Nanda and others, (2006) 5
SCC 399

List of Acts
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

List of Keywords
Orders on sentence; without recording any
finding;
Disobedience
willful,
intentional,
knowingly; Punishment has already been made
definite; No opportunity to file response to the
charge framed

Case Arising From
Order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.
656 of 2014 (Ram Chandra Asthana versus
Pradeep
Kumar
Dubey
Prin.
Secy.
U.P.
Legislative Assembly Secy).

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhinav Narayan
Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shyam Mohan
Pradhan, Abhinav Singh, Pooja Singh, Shashank
Singh