The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday, August 5, 2025, rejected the second bail application of Rana Pratap Singh, an advocate accused in a 2019 murder case. The court, presided over by Justice Krishan Pahal, denied bail primarily on the grounds that the trial is at a conclusive stage and that the delay in proceedings was largely attributable to the applicant’s own “dilatory tactics.”
The court was hearing a bail application in connection with a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 302, 307, 336/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27/30 of the Arms Act at Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh. The applicant has been in jail since April 9, 2019.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on April 7, 2019. The First Information Report (FIR) names Rana Pratap Singh as the main assailant, alleging that he fired at Anil Singh, causing his death. The applicant’s first bail application was rejected by a coordinate bench of the High Court on November 14, 2022. The court at that time had found his case distinguishable from other co-accused persons, noting he was the “main assailant,” the fatal shot was fired from his licensed gun, and an injured eyewitness had confirmed the prosecution’s version.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Submissions:
The second bail application was pressed on the new ground of a long period of incarceration, which the applicant’s counsel argued violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Senior Counsels Amrendra Nath Singh and Vinay Saran, representing the applicant, submitted that he has been in jail for nearly six years and four months. They placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, which granted bail on the grounds of prolonged custody.
It was further argued that the applicant, an advocate, is not a hardened criminal and that with the examination of witnesses of fact complete, there was no likelihood of him tampering with evidence. The counsel also pointed to a discrepancy in the prosecution’s story, noting that the postmortem report indicated blackening on a wound, which would be inconsistent with the alleged firing distance of 30-35 paces.
Informant’s and State’s Submissions:
Counsel for the informant and the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State vehemently opposed the bail plea. They argued that the trial is at its conclusive end, with the case fixed for recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on August 6, 2025.
The informant’s counsel contended that the applicant and other accused had “adopted every dilatory tactics to get the matter adjourned on one pretext or another.” It was submitted that the cross-examination of one prosecution witness (PW-1) was adjourned on 13 occasions at the behest of the defense.
Furthermore, the informant’s counsel described the applicant as a “notorious person with criminal state of mind,” citing an FIR lodged against him under the Prisons Act, 1894, for allegedly using a mobile phone in jail to threaten witnesses. This conduct, it was argued, led to his transfer from Azamgarh to Pilibhit jail and forced the prosecution to drop its injured witnesses.
The A.G.A. argued that the points regarding firing distance and blackening were already considered and rejected during the first bail hearing. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., the A.G.A. asserted that once a trial has commenced, it should be allowed to conclude without bail being granted on the basis of minor discrepancies.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After reviewing a status report from the trial court and hearing the arguments, Justice Krishan Pahal observed that the trial’s progress was indeed slow. The court noted, “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.”
The court found no new grounds to grant bail, especially since the trial was nearing completion. The judgment highlighted that any further delay caused by the applicant challenging a recent trial court order—which rejected his plea to re-examine the Investigating Officer—could not be attributed to the prosecution.
In its concluding remarks, the court stated, “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.”
Consequently, the bail application was rejected as “devoid of merits.” However, the court directed the trial court to decide the case expeditiously, in line with principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
