Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

2. Heard Sri Virendra Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R. N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

3. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.514 of 2023, under Sections 363, 377, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated

04.04.2024 considering the fact that applicant is allegedly committed sodomy upon a thirteen years old boy but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 14.11.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years and till date, not even single prosecution witness could be examined by the trial court.

5. He further submits that from the order-sheets of the case, it reflects, on 27.02.2024 charges were framed against the applicant and since then summons are being continuously issued to the prosecution witnesses but none of the prosecution witnesses till date could appear before the court concerned and therefore, without any fault of the applicant, trial of the case is being lingered on and considering the facts of the case and long incarceration of the applicant, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated. He next submits, the law is settled, if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused then even in serious cases considering his long incarceration, he should be released on bail.

6. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 and as per allegation, he alongwith others committed unnatural sexual offence against a thirteen years old boy but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years and till date, not even single prosecution witness could be examined by the trial court.

8. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that applicant is responsible for delay in trial.

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

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

11. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 after considering the fact that applicant and others committed sodomy upon a thirteen years old boy but it reflects, he is in jail in the present matter since

14.11.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years and till date, not even single prosecution witness could be examined by the trial court.

12. Record further suggests that on 27.02.2024 charges were framed against the applicant and since then almost one and half years have been passed but till date inspite of repeated summons, prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial of the case.

13. Further, there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that applicant is responsible for delay in trial.

14. Further, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases considering his long incarceration, he can be released on bail. [See: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024) 9 SCC 813 and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755].

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

19. Let the applicant- Sonu, 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 11.8.2025/Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Virendra Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R. N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State- respondent.

3. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.514 of 2023, under Sections 363, 377, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated

04.04.2024 considering the fact that applicant is allegedly committed sodomy upon a thirteen years old boy but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 14.11.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years and till date, not even single prosecution witness could be examined by the trial court.

5. He further submits that from the order-sheets of the case, it reflects, on 27.02.2024 charges were framed against the applicant and since then summons are being continuously issued to the prosecution witnesses but none of the prosecution witnesses till date could appear before the court concerned and therefore, without any fault of the applicant, trial of the case is being lingered on and considering the facts of the case and long incarceration of the applicant, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated. He next submits, the law is settled, if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused then even in serious cases considering his long incarceration, he should be released on bail.

6. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 and as per allegation, he alongwith others committed unnatural sexual offence against a thirteen years old boy but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years and till date, not even single prosecution witness could be examined by the trial court.

8. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that applicant is responsible for delay in trial.

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

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

11. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 after considering the fact that applicant and others committed sodomy upon a thirteen years old boy but it reflects, he is in jail in the present matter since

14.11.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years and till date, not even single prosecution witness could be examined by the trial court.

12. Record further suggests that on 27.02.2024 charges were framed against the applicant and since then almost one and half years have been passed but till date inspite of repeated summons, prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial of the case.

13. Further, there is no evidence on record, which can suggest that applicant is responsible for delay in trial.

14. Further, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases considering his long incarceration, he can be released on bail. [See: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024) 9 SCC 813 and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755].

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

19. Let the applicant- Sonu, 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 :- 11.8.2025/Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad