The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a dowry death case who has been incarcerated for over four years without charges being framed, primarily due to his admission to a mental health facility. The single-judge bench of Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial and reiterated that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment, especially in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.
The court allowed the bail application of Parvez Alam in connection with Case Crime No. 160 of 2021, registered under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Sevrahi, District Kushinagar.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Parvez Alam, sought bail during the pendency of his trial. He has been in jail since June 30, 2021, amounting to an incarceration period of approximately four years and two months. A status report dated August 6, 2025, from the concerned trial court confirmed that charges could not be framed against the applicant because he had been sent for treatment at the Mental Hospital in Varanasi.
Arguments of the Parties
Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no connection to the alleged offence. The counsel submitted that the framing of charges was delayed as the applicant was admitted to a mental hospital. It was further stated that the applicant has no criminal history and assured that he would cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail if released.
The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, appearing for the State of U.P., vehemently opposed the bail application.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Hon’ble Krishan Pahal, J., in his order, extensively referenced several Supreme Court judgments to underscore the principles governing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. The Court noted the trial’s status and the applicant’s mental condition as key factors in its decision.
The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024), where it was observed: “Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.” The Court further quoted the apex court’s reminder that “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.”
Reinforcing this principle, the Court referred to the landmark case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor (1978), which stated, “It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.”
The order also took note of the Supreme Court’s stance in the money laundering case of V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024), where it was declared that “inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together.”
Further reliance was placed on Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025), where the Supreme Court “reiterated that issues of personal liberty must be addressed with utmost speed by Courts.”
Decision of the Court
After considering the facts, the submissions of the parties, the evidence on record, the applicant’s mental status as reported by the trial court, and the long period of incarceration, the Court concluded that a case for bail was established.
The order stated: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the mental status of the applicant as reported by the Trial Court and considering the period of incarceration of the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.”
The bail application was allowed, and Parvez Alam was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The release is subject to conditions, including that he shall not tamper with evidence, not intimidate prosecution witnesses, and appear before the trial court on every date fixed. The court clarified that a breach of any condition would be a ground for the cancellation of bail.
The judgment concluded by making it clear that the observations made while granting bail should not influence the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
