4 Years in Jail Without Charges: Allahabad HC Grants Bail in Dowry Death Case

The order was passed on September 4 by the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal while hearing Alam's bail plea. Alam had been arrested in June 2021 in connection with a case registered under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Sevrahi police station, Kushinagar.

Alam’s counsel, advocates Durgesh Kumar Singh, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, and Rishabh Narain Singh, argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated and had no role in the alleged crime. They stressed that charges had not been framed even after four years, as Alam had been undergoing treatment at a mental hospital in Varanasi. They pointed out that he had no prior criminal history and assured the court that he would cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

The State, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the plea, maintaining that the seriousness of the charges warranted denial of bail.

However, court noted that the status report from the trial court dated August 6, 2025 confirmed that charges could not be framed due to Alam’s medical condition. Observing that the applicant had already spent four years and two months in jail without progress in trial, Justice Pahal emphasized that personal liberty could not be sacrificed at the altar of procedural delays.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024), where bail was granted to an accused languishing as an undertrial for over four years without charges, the High Court reiterated that “bail is not to be withheld as punishment".

The order also referred to several other apex court decisions, including V. Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), and the recent Ramnath Mishra v. CBI (2025), all of which highlighted that excessive pre-trial incarceration violated the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.

Justice Pahal observed, “Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India... Prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay cannot justify indefinite imprisonment of an undertrial.”

Court allowed the bail application, directing Alam’s release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The order imposed strict conditions, including that the applicant must not tamper with evidence, must not intimidate prosecution witnesses, and must appear before the trial court whenever required. Any breach of these conditions, the court warned, would invite cancellation of bail.

While making clear that its observations would not influence the trial judge’s independent assessment of evidence, the High Court stressed the need for courts to guard against pre-trial detention becoming punitive.

Case Title: Parvez Alam vs State of UP

Order Date: September 4, 2025

Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal