High Court · 2025

3. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kothibhar, District- Maharajganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court on

28.11.2023 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since

21.07.2023 i.e. for last two years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded.

6. He further submitted that from the order sheet of the case, which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit dated

07.07.2025, it reflects, till date, out of 8 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 3 witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. He further submitted that from the order sheet of the case, it also reflects, prosecutrix of the case has been examined by the trial court as P.W. 2, therefore, if applicant be enlarged on bail in the present matter then it cannot be said that he will tamper the prosecution evidence.

7. He further submitted that even from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it could not be reflected that it is a case of forceful rape.

8. He further submitted that law is settled, right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serous cases, he can be released on bail and there is no material available on record, which can suggest that applicant caused any delay in trial, therefore, prima facie, it appears, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated.

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

10. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that victim appears to be fifteen and half years old girl but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two years and till date, out of eight witnesses of the charge sheet only three witnesses could be examined.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that victim of the case has already been examined by the trial court as P.W. 2. He further could not dispute the fact that from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it reflects, it is not a case of forceful rape. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

14. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit after considering the fact that victim appears to be fifteen and half years old girl but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.07.2023 i.e. for last almost two years and till date, out of 8 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 3 witnesses could be examined and there is no material available on record, which can suggest that applicant caused any delay in trial. Considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two years, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated.

15. Further, record also suggests that statement of victim has already been recorded by the trial court as P.W. 2. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if applicant is enlarged on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence, cannot be ruled out.

16. Further, from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate during investigation, it reflects, it is not a case of forceful rape.

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

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Ganesh 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 14.7.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kothibhar, District- Maharajganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court on

28.11.2023 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since

21.07.2023 i.e. for last two years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded.

6. He further submitted that from the order sheet of the case, which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit dated

07.07.2025, it reflects, till date, out of 8 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 3 witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. He further submitted that from the order sheet of the case, it also reflects, prosecutrix of the case has been examined by the trial court as P.W. 2, therefore, if applicant be enlarged on bail in the present matter then it cannot be said that he will tamper the prosecution evidence.

7. He further submitted that even from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it could not be reflected that it is a case of forceful rape.

8. He further submitted that law is settled, right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serous cases, he can be released on bail and there is no material available on record, which can suggest that applicant caused any delay in trial, therefore, prima facie, it appears, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated.

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

10. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that victim appears to be fifteen and half years old girl but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two years and till date, out of eight witnesses of the charge sheet only three witnesses could be examined.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that victim of the case has already been examined by the trial court as P.W. 2. He further could not dispute the fact that from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it reflects, it is not a case of forceful rape. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

14. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit after considering the fact that victim appears to be fifteen and half years old girl but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.07.2023 i.e. for last almost two years and till date, out of 8 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 3 witnesses could be examined and there is no material available on record, which can suggest that applicant caused any delay in trial. Considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two years, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated.

15. Further, record also suggests that statement of victim has already been recorded by the trial court as P.W. 2. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if applicant is enlarged on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence, cannot be ruled out.

16. Further, from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate during investigation, it reflects, it is not a case of forceful rape.

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

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

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

20. Let the applicant- Ganesh 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 14.7.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad