State of U.P v. Counsel for

: Gaurav Srivastav, G.A. Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramdhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Srivastav, learned counsel for informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2022, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Bah, District Agra during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of 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 02.12.2023 and he is pressing the instant second bail application mainly on the ground that in the present matter applicant is in jail since

03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and till date out of 24 witnesses of the charge- sheet only two prosecution witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of early disposal. He further submits, there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial.

4. He further submits, admittedly applicant is not having any criminal history but deceased was having criminal history and he was a man of bad antecedents.

5. He further submits, in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused that they committed the murder of the deceased but during investigation when the statement of eye witnesses were recorded then they changed the prosecution case and started making allegation that applicant was having sharp edge weapon.

6. He further submits, even from the statement of eye witnesses recorded during investigation it could not be reflected that other co-accused persons did not participate in the incident and it reflects, all the four accused persons participated in the present crime. 2 BAIL No. 34498 of 2024

7. 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.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after considering the entire facts of the case in detail, the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court and this is second bail application but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since 03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and till date out of 24 witnesses of the charge-sheet only two prosecution witnesses could be examined and there is no evidence that applicant is causing delay in trial.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history but deceased was having criminal history.

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

12. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the merits of the case but it reflects, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

13. Record further suggests that in the charge-sheet there are 24 prosecution witnesses and till date only two prosecution witness could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of early disposal.

14. Further, from the record it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial.

15. Further, law is settled that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail and considering the fact that applicant is in jail since 03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and there is no allegation that he is causing delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. However, it appears, deceased was having criminal history.

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. 3 BAIL No. 34498 of 2024

19. Let the applicant - Kamal Kishore 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. September 17, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Gaurav Srivastav, G.A. Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramdhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Srivastav, learned counsel for informant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2022, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Bah, District Agra during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of 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 02.12.2023 and he is pressing the instant second bail application mainly on the ground that in the present matter applicant is in jail since

03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and till date out of 24 witnesses of the charge- sheet only two prosecution witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of early disposal. He further submits, there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial.

4. He further submits, admittedly applicant is not having any criminal history but deceased was having criminal history and he was a man of bad antecedents.

5. He further submits, in the FIR only general role has been assigned to all the accused that they committed the murder of the deceased but during investigation when the statement of eye witnesses were recorded then they changed the prosecution case and started making allegation that applicant was having sharp edge weapon.

6. He further submits, even from the statement of eye witnesses recorded during investigation it could not be reflected that other co-accused persons did not participate in the incident and it reflects, all the four accused persons participated in the present crime. 2 BAIL No. 34498 of 2024

7. 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.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that after considering the entire facts of the case in detail, the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court and this is second bail application but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since 03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and till date out of 24 witnesses of the charge-sheet only two prosecution witnesses could be examined and there is no evidence that applicant is causing delay in trial.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history but deceased was having criminal history.

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

12. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court after considering the merits of the case but it reflects, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

13. Record further suggests that in the charge-sheet there are 24 prosecution witnesses and till date only two prosecution witness could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of early disposal.

14. Further, from the record it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial.

15. Further, law is settled that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail and considering the fact that applicant is in jail since 03.11.2022 i.e. for almost three years and there is no allegation that he is causing delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated.

16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. However, it appears, deceased was having criminal history.

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. 3 BAIL No. 34498 of 2024

19. Let the applicant - Kamal Kishore 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. September 17, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad