High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Anjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 92 of 2021, under Sections 354Kha, 302 IPC, Police Station- Aung, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 05.10.2021 against applicant and according to FIR, informant and his family members when returned home then they found that daughter of the informant was lying dead on the cot and near her cot, applicant was standing. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant used to consume liquor and under intoxication, he made sexual assault upon the deceased and thereafter strangulated her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the real brother of the informant and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that actually a dispute with regard to partition of property is pending between applicant and informant and only due to this enmity, he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that however, as per informant and his family members, applicant was standing near the cot of the deceased when they arrived at the house but their statements do not appear to be convincing.

6. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 06.10.2021 i.e. for last almost three and half years and till date, not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

7. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost three and half years, therefore, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not be violated.

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as informant and others witnessed the applicant while he was standing near the cot of the deceased, therefore, it cannot be said that he is innocent, however, he could not dispute the fact that there is no eye-witness account with regard to alleged murder of the deceased and applicant is the real brother of the informant and he is not not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last almost three and half years.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. As per allegation, informant and his family members went to filed but when they returned then they found that deceased was lying dead on the cot and near her cot applicant was standing and except this, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. Considering the statements of informant and his family members, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there statements do not appear to be convincing, cannot be completely ruled out.

12. Further, applicant is the real brother of the informant i.e. real uncle of the deceased and as per applicant, due to dispute of partition of the property, he has been made accused in the present matter. Considering the facts of the case and relationship of the applicant with the informant, the defence taken by the applicant in the instant bail application, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. Further, admittedly there is no eye-witness account of the incident.

13. Further, record also suggests that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost three and half years and considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned and from its perusal, it reflects that till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

14. Further, from the report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant is responsible for delay in trial and, therefore, considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Subhash be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. 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. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Anjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 92 of 2021, under Sections 354Kha, 302 IPC, Police Station- Aung, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 05.10.2021 against applicant and according to FIR, informant and his family members when returned home then they found that daughter of the informant was lying dead on the cot and near her cot, applicant was standing. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant used to consume liquor and under intoxication, he made sexual assault upon the deceased and thereafter strangulated her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the real brother of the informant and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that actually a dispute with regard to partition of property is pending between applicant and informant and only due to this enmity, he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submitted that however, as per informant and his family members, applicant was standing near the cot of the deceased when they arrived at the house but their statements do not appear to be convincing.

6. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 06.10.2021 i.e. for last almost three and half years and till date, not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.

7. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost three and half years, therefore, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not be violated.

8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as informant and others witnessed the applicant while he was standing near the cot of the deceased, therefore, it cannot be said that he is innocent, however, he could not dispute the fact that there is no eye-witness account with regard to alleged murder of the deceased and applicant is the real brother of the informant and he is not not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last almost three and half years.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. As per allegation, informant and his family members went to filed but when they returned then they found that deceased was lying dead on the cot and near her cot applicant was standing and except this, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. Considering the statements of informant and his family members, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there statements do not appear to be convincing, cannot be completely ruled out.

12. Further, applicant is the real brother of the informant i.e. real uncle of the deceased and as per applicant, due to dispute of partition of the property, he has been made accused in the present matter. Considering the facts of the case and relationship of the applicant with the informant, the defence taken by the applicant in the instant bail application, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. Further, admittedly there is no eye-witness account of the incident.

13. Further, record also suggests that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost three and half years and considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned and from its perusal, it reflects that till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

14. Further, from the report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant is responsible for delay in trial and, therefore, considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Subhash be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. 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. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad