State of U.P v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Rajat Sonkar Advocate holding brief of Sri Kushagra Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Gaurav Vinayam, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 34 IPC & 7 CLA Act, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first two bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed by this Court but he is pressing the instant third bail application on the ground that applicant is facing trial for offence under sections 307 IPC and in the present matter he is in jail since 27.12.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years and till date only one prosecution witness could be examined and inspite of repeated summons injured is not appearing before the court concerned, therefore, there is no hope of its early disposal of trial and therefore, without any delay caused by applicant case is being lingered on.

4. He further submitted that even as far as merit of the present case is concerned on the basis of general allegations applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith several others and he is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

5. He further submitted that therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed after considering entire facts of the case but could not dispute the fact that applicant is facing trial for 2 BAIL No. 11797 of 2025 offence u/s 307 IPC and in the present matter he is in jail for last more than one and half years and till date only one prosecution witness could be examined and till date injured of the case could not be examined.

7. They further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence which can suggest that the applicant is adopting delaying tactics.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that as far as merit is concerned, only general allegation has been made against as many as five others including applicant that they caused injuries to the injured and there is no specific role has been attributed to the applicant.

9. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit.

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

11. This is third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed but it reflects applicant is facing trial for offence under section 307 IPC and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years and considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned which is now on record and from its perusal it appears, till date out of eleven prosecution witnesses only one could be examined and till date even prosecution could not examine injured of the case, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

12. Further, as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however, as per allegation applicant and three others caused injuries to the injured through sharp edged weapon but only general role has been attributed to all the accused persons and there is no specific role has been assigned to the applicant.

13. Further, no motive has been assigned to the applicant and motive was assigned to co-accused Rohit @ Rinchu Patel.

14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

15. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, particularly the long incarceration of the applicant and languid pace of the trial, 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 3 BAIL No. 11797 of 2025 second bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant-Rohit Kumar Varma, 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. October 14, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajat Sonkar Advocate holding brief of Sri Kushagra Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Gaurav Vinayam, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 34 IPC & 7 CLA Act, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first two bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed by this Court but he is pressing the instant third bail application on the ground that applicant is facing trial for offence under sections 307 IPC and in the present matter he is in jail since 27.12.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years and till date only one prosecution witness could be examined and inspite of repeated summons injured is not appearing before the court concerned, therefore, there is no hope of its early disposal of trial and therefore, without any delay caused by applicant case is being lingered on.

4. He further submitted that even as far as merit of the present case is concerned on the basis of general allegations applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith several others and he is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

5. He further submitted that therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed after considering entire facts of the case but could not dispute the fact that applicant is facing trial for 2 BAIL No. 11797 of 2025 offence u/s 307 IPC and in the present matter he is in jail for last more than one and half years and till date only one prosecution witness could be examined and till date injured of the case could not be examined.

7. They further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence which can suggest that the applicant is adopting delaying tactics.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that as far as merit is concerned, only general allegation has been made against as many as five others including applicant that they caused injuries to the injured and there is no specific role has been attributed to the applicant.

9. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit.

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

11. This is third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his earlier two bail applications have been dismissed but it reflects applicant is facing trial for offence under section 307 IPC and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years and considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned which is now on record and from its perusal it appears, till date out of eleven prosecution witnesses only one could be examined and till date even prosecution could not examine injured of the case, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

12. Further, as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however, as per allegation applicant and three others caused injuries to the injured through sharp edged weapon but only general role has been attributed to all the accused persons and there is no specific role has been assigned to the applicant.

13. Further, no motive has been assigned to the applicant and motive was assigned to co-accused Rohit @ Rinchu Patel.

14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

15. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, particularly the long incarceration of the applicant and languid pace of the trial, 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 3 BAIL No. 11797 of 2025 second bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant-Rohit Kumar Varma, 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. October 14, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad