State of U.P. vs Party(s)

1. Heard Sri Mayank Krishna S Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 129 of 2021 (S.T. No. 838 of 2021), under Sections 493A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Binawar, District Badaun during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.06.2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

4. He further submits, considering the long incarceration of applicant a detailed report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, till date out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only five witnesses could be examined, therefore, it appears, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

5. He further submits, after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against applicant on 28.07.2021 and on 19.10.2021 charges were framed and thereafter PW-1 and PW-2 were examined by the trial court on 19.07.2023 and 10.08.2023 respectively and thereafter PW-3 was examined on 06.10.2023 but after that till 20.01.2025 no prosecution witness could be 2 BAIL No. 12756 of 2025 examined and after one and half years PW-4 was examined and thereafter on

06.09.2025 PW-5 was examined and therefore fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated specially considering the fact that there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial.

6. He further submits, law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused then even in serious cases he can be released on bail.

7. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2024) 9 SCC 813.

8. He further submits, even parents of the deceased during trial did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and applicant is husband of the deceased and after considering the fact that his wife died due to strangulation, his first bail application was dismissed but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since 15.06.2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation, applicant is adopting the delaying tactics. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

11. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but it reflects, in the present matter applicant is in jail since jail since

15.06.2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

12. Considering long incarceration of applicant, a report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, till date out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only five witness could be examined and considering the report of the trial court it reflects, trial of the 3 BAIL No. 12756 of 2025 case is moving with languid pace due to non cooperation of prosecution witnesses and there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

13. Law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right then even in serious cases an accused can be released on bail. Record further suggests that even parents of the deceased during trial did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.

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

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

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

17. Let the applicant - Vinod Kashyap 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.

18. 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.

19. 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. September 16, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Mayank Krishna S Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 129 of 2021 (S.T. No. 838 of 2021), under Sections 493A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Binawar, District Badaun during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but in the present matter applicant is in jail since 15.06.2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

4. He further submits, considering the long incarceration of applicant a detailed report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, till date out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only five witnesses could be examined, therefore, it appears, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

5. He further submits, after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against applicant on 28.07.2021 and on 19.10.2021 charges were framed and thereafter PW-1 and PW-2 were examined by the trial court on 19.07.2023 and 10.08.2023 respectively and thereafter PW-3 was examined on 06.10.2023 but after that till 20.01.2025 no prosecution witness could be 2 BAIL No. 12756 of 2025 examined and after one and half years PW-4 was examined and thereafter on

06.09.2025 PW-5 was examined and therefore fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated specially considering the fact that there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial.

6. He further submits, law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused then even in serious cases he can be released on bail.

7. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2024) 9 SCC 813.

8. He further submits, even parents of the deceased during trial did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and applicant is husband of the deceased and after considering the fact that his wife died due to strangulation, his first bail application was dismissed but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since 15.06.2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation, applicant is adopting the delaying tactics. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

11. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to strangulation but it reflects, in the present matter applicant is in jail since jail since

15.06.2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

12. Considering long incarceration of applicant, a report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, till date out of nine witnesses of the charge-sheet only five witness could be examined and considering the report of the trial court it reflects, trial of the 3 BAIL No. 12756 of 2025 case is moving with languid pace due to non cooperation of prosecution witnesses and there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

13. Law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right then even in serious cases an accused can be released on bail. Record further suggests that even parents of the deceased during trial did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.

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

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

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

17. Let the applicant - Vinod Kashyap 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.

18. 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.

19. 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. September 16, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad