HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15082 of 2025 Court No. - 66 (Sl. No. 39 out of 116) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sadaful Islam Jafri, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State / learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 489 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Syana, District Bulandshahar, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3982 of 2022. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have put his son to death by throttling on 20.8.2021 at about 5.00 am. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant was examined in the trial court and she has not supported the prosecution story, as such, there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Danish .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, it is the period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in jail since 21.8.2021 and about four years and six months have passed since his incarceration. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated as there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case. The cause of asphyxia as a result of throttling and applicant has put his son to death and there was no occasion for the informant to falsely implicate the applicant. As per the status report dated, 10.3.2026, already seven witnesses have been examined. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there was no occasion for the informant to falsely implicate the applicant of having put to death his own son, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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. 11. 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. March 19, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 15082 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad