After Nearly A Year In Custody, Allahabad HC Rejects Second Bail In Alleged Will-Fabrication Case, Finding General Defence Plea Insufficient

The appellant challenged the rejection of his second bail application in a prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from allegations including fabrication of documents and illegal possession of the informant’s property.

His earlier appeal against rejection of bail had been dismissed on 12 November 2025.

The appellant relied on his custody of about one year and the advanced stage of the trial, arguing that release was needed to collect and present defence evidence; the State and private respondent opposed bail, submitting that the investigating officer’s cross-examination was continuing and that the appellant had contributed to delay.

Under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction against the bail-rejection order.

A successive bail application is not barred, but the court must consider the grounds for rejecting the earlier application and identify a material change or fresh ground before taking a different view; the same grounds cannot simply be re-agitated (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42).

The need to prepare an effective defence may be relevant to bail, particularly when prosecution evidence is concluded or nearing conclusion, but it does not create an automatic entitlement to release; the court must assess the circumstances, including the accused’s conduct and any specific need for liberty (Asha v. State of U.P., 2025:AHC:184205; Irfan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 INSC 1012).

The Court considered the trial’s progress and the appellant’s custody but found that the investigating officer’s cross-examination was still continuing and that the prosecution evidence had not concluded.

It also took account of the respondents’ submission that the appellant’s cross-examination of witnesses had taken five to six days per witness, while making no final finding on whether that time was justified.

The appellant had not identified particular defence evidence to be obtained, the steps required to obtain it, or why it could not be arranged through counsel or others while he remained in custody.

The Court held that the trial court remained obliged to afford him a fair opportunity to present his defence, but that this right did not confer an unconditional right to bail.

Considering these matters alongside the earlier bail decision and the allegations recorded in it, the Court found no sufficient basis to depart from its previous conclusion.

It directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously and avoid unnecessary adjournments, while clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.