The Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of M

1. Heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned counsel for informant and Sri Ajeet Madhesia, learned Brief Holder for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 295 of 2024, under Sections 333, 65(1) BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court on merit vide order dated 22.11.2024 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail since 07.09.2024 i.e. for last more than a year and till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined. He further submits, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of early disposal.

4. He further submits, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases an accused 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.

5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history. 2 BAIL No. 26429 of 2025

6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that victim of the case was about 16 years and she in her both the statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant committed rape upon her but could not dispute the fact that applicant is detained in jail for last more than a year and till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined.

7. They further could not dispute the fact that from the record it could not be reflected that due to the applicant trial of the case is being lingered on. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

9. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that victims appears to be 16 years old girl and she in her both the statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant committed rape upon her but it reflects, applicant is in jail since September, 2024 i.e. for last more than a year. Considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a detailed report was called from the court concerned which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, in spite of repeated summons prosecution witness are not appearing before the trial court, therefore, from the report of court concerned it reflects, due to reluctant attitude of the prosecution witnesses, trial of the case could not be proceeded any further and therefore, prima facie it appears that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been infringed.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2024) 9 SCC 813 observed that if there is violation of fundamental right of an accused then even in serious cases after considering the long incarceration he can be released on bail.

11. Further, three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 also held that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation an accused can be released on bail after considering the long incarceration. In the present 3 BAIL No. 26429 of 2025 matter, admittedly applicant is in jail for last more than a year and considering the conduct of the prosecution witnesses there is no hope of early disposal of trial.

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

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

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

15. Let the applicant -Jatin @ Tarun 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 8, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned counsel for informant and Sri Ajeet Madhesia, learned Brief Holder for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 295 of 2024, under Sections 333, 65(1) BNS and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court on merit vide order dated 22.11.2024 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail since 07.09.2024 i.e. for last more than a year and till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined. He further submits, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of early disposal.

4. He further submits, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases an accused 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.

5. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history. 2 BAIL No. 26429 of 2025

6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that victim of the case was about 16 years and she in her both the statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant committed rape upon her but could not dispute the fact that applicant is detained in jail for last more than a year and till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined.

7. They further could not dispute the fact that from the record it could not be reflected that due to the applicant trial of the case is being lingered on. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

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

9. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that victims appears to be 16 years old girl and she in her both the statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant committed rape upon her but it reflects, applicant is in jail since September, 2024 i.e. for last more than a year. Considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a detailed report was called from the court concerned which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, in spite of repeated summons prosecution witness are not appearing before the trial court, therefore, from the report of court concerned it reflects, due to reluctant attitude of the prosecution witnesses, trial of the case could not be proceeded any further and therefore, prima facie it appears that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been infringed.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2024) 9 SCC 813 observed that if there is violation of fundamental right of an accused then even in serious cases after considering the long incarceration he can be released on bail.

11. Further, three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 also held that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation an accused can be released on bail after considering the long incarceration. In the present 3 BAIL No. 26429 of 2025 matter, admittedly applicant is in jail for last more than a year and considering the conduct of the prosecution witnesses there is no hope of early disposal of trial.

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

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

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

15. Let the applicant -Jatin @ Tarun 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 8, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad