# AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TH. DGC(CRL.) & ANR

- **Citation:** [2008] 3 S.C.R. 545
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-02-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2008
- **Bench:** K.G. Balakrishnan C.J, R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/akhilesh-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-th-dgc-crl-anr-24332
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

. .,.
Bail - Sessions case pending trial - Rejection of first
bail application - Grant of second bail application - Set aside c
by High Court - Challenge to - Held: In case of delay in trial
of the case, accused would be at liberty to file bail application
and Sessions Court would consider the same on merits.
A case was registered against the appellant for the
D
offences u/ss 302, 395 r/w s. 120-8 IPC and are pending
trial. Appellant's first bail application was rejected and the
..... ~
second bail application was allowed. In the criminal
miscellaneous case, High Court set aside the order
passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail. Hence the
E
present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: When the matter was pending before this
Court, the case was adjourned repeatedly with the F
...
expectation that the important witnesses would be
•
examined by the prosecution and the trial would be
completed at an early date. The trial is being continued
and most of the witnesses must have been examined by
this time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge
G
is directed to complete the same within three months and,
if for the reason, except the non-cooperation of the
accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the
. "'
appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court
545
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A for bail and the Sessions Court would consider the same
..
_,...
on merits. (Para 6) [547-F, G; 548-A]

## Text

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 545
_..
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH
A
-.._
v.
STATE OF U.P. TH. DGC(CRL.) & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN C.J., R.V. RAVEENDRAN
AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)
. .,.
Bail - Sessions case pending trial - Rejection of first
bail application - Grant of second bail application - Set aside c
by High Court - Challenge to - Held: In case of delay in trial
of the case, accused would be at liberty to file bail application
and Sessions Court would consider the same on merits.
A case was registered against the appellant for the
D
offences u/ss 302, 395 r/w s. 120-8 IPC and are pending
trial. Appellant's first bail application was rejected and the
..... ~
second bail application was allowed. In the criminal
miscellaneous case, High Court set aside the order
passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail. Hence the
E
present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: When the matter was pending before this
Court, the case was adjourned repeatedly with the F
...
expectation that the important witnesses would be
•
examined by the prosecution and the trial would be
completed at an early date. The trial is being continued
and most of the witnesses must have been examined by
this time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge
G
is directed to complete the same within three months and,
if for the reason, except the non-cooperation of the
accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the
. "'
appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court
545
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A for bail and the Sessions Court would consider the same
..
_,...
on merits. (Para 6) [547-F, G; 548-A]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 399 of 2008.
B
From the final Judgment and order dated 20/12/2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Case
No. 2198/2002.
T •
Ram Jethmalani, Lataa Krishnamurthy, S. Balaji,
c Sudhanshu Nath Singh, Madhusmita Bora, S.R. Sharma and
Saurabh for the Appellant.
Dr. R.G. Padia, Ranjit Kumar, lrshadAhmad, R.K.S. Yadav,
Sushi I Mishra, Lal it Srivastava and K. K. Mohan for the
Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. (1) Leave granted.
~ ...
(2) The appellant is an accused in Crime No. 311/2002
E registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 395 read
with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant
moved bail application before the Sessions Court and the same
was rejected on 18.10.2002. Thereafter, the appellant moved
another bail application on 29.10.2002 and the same was
F allowed on 7.11.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the second
JI..
respondent herein filed a criminal miscellaneous case before
..
the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. By the impugned
order, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Sessions
Judge granting bail to the appellant. The main reason given by
G the learned Single Judge of the High Court in cancelling the bail
granted to the appellant is that the first bail application was
rejected on valid grounds and just 19 days after the rejection of
the first bail application, the appellant herein had no ground to
urge for bail as there was no change in circumstances. It was
J'
H also pointed out that whatever grounds urged in the second bail
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TH.
547
..;
DGC(CRL.) & ANR. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.)
~
application could have been stated in the first bail application A
and the reasons given for grant of bail by the Sessions Judge in
the second bail application were. in utter violation of the settled
principles of judicial propriety.
(3) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the B
parties.
.... -f
(4) A sessions case is pefiding trial against the appellant.
There was an allegation that the appellant herein attempted to
cause death of one person who was arrayed as a prosecution
witness and a case was registered against the appellant. It is c
also pointed out that the appellant herein made an attempt on
the life of brother of the second respondent herein and for that
also a case had been registered against the appellant under
Section 307 IPC. It is further pointed out that a series of crimes
have been registered against the appellant.
D
.. -'<
(5) Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant, pointed out that all these cases have
been registered on account of political rivalry and many of such
cases were closed by the investigating agency when they were
E
found baseless. The list of cases has been furnished by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant also pointed out
x
that even against the second respondent several cases are
•
pending and he had no right to move for cancellation of the bail
granted to the appellant.
F
(6) When the matter was pending before us, we repeatedly
adjourned the case with the expectation that the important
witnesses would be examined by the prosecution and the trial
. would be completed at an early date. The trial is being continued G
and most of the witnesses must have been examined by this
• -'<,
time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions Judge, Rai
Bareli is directed to complete the same within a period of three
months and, if for any reason, except the non-cooperation of .
the accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court for
bail and, without being influenced by the observations made by
the High Court in the impugned order, the same would be
considered by the Sessions Judge on merits and appropriate
order shall be passed.
B
(7) The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
N.J.
Appeal disposed of.
,,;,. .