State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

3. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.547 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304- B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

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 15th September, 2023 after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under normal circumstances and there was also allegation of demand of dowry.

5. He next submits that he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17th May, 2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

6. He further submits that in the charge-sheet, there are total 26 witnesses but till date only seven could be examined by the trial court.

7. He further submits that from the order-sheet of the case, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 30th August, 2025 2 BAIL No. 27255 of 2024 filed in support of the instant second bail application, it reflects, for last several dates remaining witnesses of facts are not appearing before the trial court inspite of coercive measures taken against them and therefore, trial of the case is being lingered on without any delay caused by the applicant.

8. He next submits that right of speedy trial is fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail and considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed.

9. He further submits that apart from the present case, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit.

10. Per contra; learned A.G.A. however opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage due to burn injuries and there was also allegation of demand of dowry and after considering all these facts, his first bail application has been dismissed but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than four years and till date out of 26 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only seven could be examined.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that from the order-sheet of the case, it could not be reflected that applicant is delaying the trial rather it reflects that the remaining prosecution witnesses inspite of coercive measures are not being appearing before the trial court.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to burn injuries within seven years of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but it reflects that applicant is languishing in jail since May, 2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial could not be concluded. It appears that out of 26 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only seven could be examined till date and therefore, it reflects trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 3 BAIL No. 27255 of 2024

15. Further, from the order-sheet dated 3rd July, 2025, it reflects warrants were issued to Sri Tejpal, Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Geeta and again on 14 July, 2025, 1st August, 2025 and 19th August, 2025 N.B.W. were issued against them along with notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C., therefore, it appears that prosecution witnesses inspite of coercive measures are not appearing before the trial court and prima-facie, it reflects that fundamental right of a speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

16. Further, law is settled if fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused is violated then even in serious cases considering his long incarceration, he can be released on bail.

17. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

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

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

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

21. Let the applicant - Ankur Kumar @ Vishnu Kumar 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.

22. 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 4 BAIL No. 27255 of 2024 of the applicant.

23. 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 22, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

3. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.547 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304- B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

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 15th September, 2023 after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under normal circumstances and there was also allegation of demand of dowry.

5. He next submits that he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17th May, 2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

6. He further submits that in the charge-sheet, there are total 26 witnesses but till date only seven could be examined by the trial court.

7. He further submits that from the order-sheet of the case, which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 30th August, 2025 2 BAIL No. 27255 of 2024 filed in support of the instant second bail application, it reflects, for last several dates remaining witnesses of facts are not appearing before the trial court inspite of coercive measures taken against them and therefore, trial of the case is being lingered on without any delay caused by the applicant.

8. He next submits that right of speedy trial is fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail and considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed.

9. He further submits that apart from the present case, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit.

10. Per contra; learned A.G.A. however opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage due to burn injuries and there was also allegation of demand of dowry and after considering all these facts, his first bail application has been dismissed but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than four years and till date out of 26 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only seven could be examined.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that from the order-sheet of the case, it could not be reflected that applicant is delaying the trial rather it reflects that the remaining prosecution witnesses inspite of coercive measures are not being appearing before the trial court.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case, applicant is having no other criminal history to his credit.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to burn injuries within seven years of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but it reflects that applicant is languishing in jail since May, 2021 i.e. for last more than four years and till date trial could not be concluded. It appears that out of 26 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only seven could be examined till date and therefore, it reflects trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 3 BAIL No. 27255 of 2024

15. Further, from the order-sheet dated 3rd July, 2025, it reflects warrants were issued to Sri Tejpal, Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Geeta and again on 14 July, 2025, 1st August, 2025 and 19th August, 2025 N.B.W. were issued against them along with notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C., therefore, it appears that prosecution witnesses inspite of coercive measures are not appearing before the trial court and prima-facie, it reflects that fundamental right of a speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

16. Further, law is settled if fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused is violated then even in serious cases considering his long incarceration, he can be released on bail.

17. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

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

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

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

21. Let the applicant - Ankur Kumar @ Vishnu Kumar 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.

22. 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 4 BAIL No. 27255 of 2024 of the applicant.

23. 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 22, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad