High Court · 2025

applicant on bail in Session Trial No.112 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.900 of 2020, under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasya, District- Kushinagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.12.2020 against applicant and according to the FIR on 24.12.2020 at 8 p.m. in the evening father of the informant after having dinner had gone for fishing and before departure, he told cousin brother of the informant namely Suraj that he should come in the next morning at the place of fishing and when on the next day at 6 a.m. in the morning Suraj went there then he found that the father of the informant had died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that Suraj, the cousin brother of the informant, informed him that applicant committed the murder of his father.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however applicant is named in the FIR but it is admitted that informant of the case is not an eye-witness.

5. He further submits, however, it appears that FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant on the basis of information given by Suraj, the cousin brother of the informant but from the FIR, it could not be reflected that he was the eye-witness and after ten days' when his statement was recorded then he started claiming himself eye-witness and stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased in his presence but considering the fact that his statement was recorded after ten days and from the FIR, it could not be reflected that he was the eye-witness, at this stage, it cannot be said that he witnessed the real incident and it appears, subsequently after ten days I.O. introduced him has an eye- witness.

6. He further submits that except Suraj, there is no other eye- witness account.

7. He further submits that however as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out, his blood-stained clothes and one sharped edged weapon, alleged to have been used in the crime, were recovered but entire recovery is false and baseless.

8. He further submits that however in the charge-sheet there are as many as 21 witnesses but till date only three witnesses could be examined by the trial court, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

9. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.12.2020 i.e for last more than four years.

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

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that witness Suraj is the eye-witness of the incident and he stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that he is the real nephew of the deceased and his statement was recorded by the I.O. after ten days and in the FIR it is not mentioned, he witnessed the incident.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since

25.12.2020 i.e for last more than four years.

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

14. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of the father of the informant and witness Suraj is the eye-witness of the incident but it reflects that he is the real nephew of the deceased and his statement was recorded by the I.O. during investigation after ten days.

15. Further, from the FIR, it could not be reflected that Suraj was the eye-witness, however, FIR was lodged against applicant on the basis of information given by him.

16. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.12.2020 i.e for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

17. Further, it appears, in the charge-sheet there are as many as 21 witnesses but till date only three witnesses could be examined by the trial court, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal and there is no material available on record, which can suggest that due to the applicant, trial of the case is being lingered on.

18. Further, law is settled, on the basis of long incarceration even in serious cases, an accused can be released on bail.

19. Further, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, an accused can be released on bail.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above particularly the long incarceration of the applicant of more than four years, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

22. Let the applicant- Ramashish Harijan 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 23.1.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

applicant on bail in Session Trial No.112 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.900 of 2020, under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasya, District- Kushinagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 25.12.2020 against applicant and according to the FIR on 24.12.2020 at 8 p.m. in the evening father of the informant after having dinner had gone for fishing and before departure, he told cousin brother of the informant namely Suraj that he should come in the next morning at the place of fishing and when on the next day at 6 a.m. in the morning Suraj went there then he found that the father of the informant had died. It is further mentioned in the FIR that Suraj, the cousin brother of the informant, informed him that applicant committed the murder of his father.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however applicant is named in the FIR but it is admitted that informant of the case is not an eye-witness.

5. He further submits, however, it appears that FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant on the basis of information given by Suraj, the cousin brother of the informant but from the FIR, it could not be reflected that he was the eye-witness and after ten days' when his statement was recorded then he started claiming himself eye-witness and stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased in his presence but considering the fact that his statement was recorded after ten days and from the FIR, it could not be reflected that he was the eye-witness, at this stage, it cannot be said that he witnessed the real incident and it appears, subsequently after ten days I.O. introduced him has an eye- witness.

6. He further submits that except Suraj, there is no other eye- witness account.

7. He further submits that however as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out, his blood-stained clothes and one sharped edged weapon, alleged to have been used in the crime, were recovered but entire recovery is false and baseless.

8. He further submits that however in the charge-sheet there are as many as 21 witnesses but till date only three witnesses could be examined by the trial court, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

9. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.12.2020 i.e for last more than four years.

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

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submit that witness Suraj is the eye-witness of the incident and he stated that applicant committed the murder of the deceased but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that he is the real nephew of the deceased and his statement was recorded by the I.O. after ten days and in the FIR it is not mentioned, he witnessed the incident.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since

25.12.2020 i.e for last more than four years.

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

14. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of the father of the informant and witness Suraj is the eye-witness of the incident but it reflects that he is the real nephew of the deceased and his statement was recorded by the I.O. during investigation after ten days.

15. Further, from the FIR, it could not be reflected that Suraj was the eye-witness, however, FIR was lodged against applicant on the basis of information given by him.

16. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.12.2020 i.e for last more than four years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

17. Further, it appears, in the charge-sheet there are as many as 21 witnesses but till date only three witnesses could be examined by the trial court, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal and there is no material available on record, which can suggest that due to the applicant, trial of the case is being lingered on.

18. Further, law is settled, on the basis of long incarceration even in serious cases, an accused can be released on bail.

19. Further, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, an accused can be released on bail.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above particularly the long incarceration of the applicant of more than four years, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

22. Let the applicant- Ramashish Harijan 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 :- 23.1.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad