High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Shobhit Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.428 of 2021, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 404/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.07.2021 against unknown person under Section 363 I.P.C. with regard to missing of the daughter of the informant aged about five years.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation when dead-body of the deceased was recovered then police dog squad reached at the house of the applicant and merely on this basis, he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits that however as per allegation when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one pair anklet of the deceased was recovered and according to the prosecution, from the house of the applicant blood-stained soil was also recovered but entire recovery is false and planted one.

6. He further submits that even without any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recoveries, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

7. He further submits that even till date the alleged recovered blood-stained soil could not be connected with the instant crime.

8. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.07.2021 i.e. for last more than three and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

9. He further submits that from the compliance affidavit filed by the State, it reflects, till date only four prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total eighteen witnesses of the charge-sheet.

10. He further submits that from the order-sheet of the case, which has been annexed alongwith compliance affidavit filed by the State, it reflects that from several dates witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned.

11. He further submits that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail.

12. He further submits that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than three and half years, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

13. He further submits that however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offences.

14. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which five years old minor daughter of the informant has been murdered but he fairly conceded it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except recovery of anklet of the deceased and blood-stained soil, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

15. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.07.2021 i.e. for last more than three and half years and till date only four prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total eighteen witnesses of the charge-sheet.

16. He further could not dispute the fact that from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant caused delay in trial.

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

18. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of five years old daughter of the informant but it reflects, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and only evidence against him is:- (a) his confessional statement; (b) on his pointing out anklet of the deceased was recovered and (c) from his house blood-stained soil was recovered. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of above evidence, at this stage, it is hard to believe that applicant committed the murder of the deceased specially considering the fact that except above recoveries, there is no other corroborative evidence against the applicant on record and till date the alleged recovered blood-stained soil could not be connected with the instant crime.

19. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.07.2021 i.e. for last more than three and half years and till date only four prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total eighteen witnesses of the charge-sheet and therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

20. Further, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than three and half years and there is no evidence that he was responsible for delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

21. Further, however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offences.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 23 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

24. Let the applicant- Moolchandra Raidas 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 18.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Shobhit Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.428 of 2021, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 404/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.07.2021 against unknown person under Section 363 I.P.C. with regard to missing of the daughter of the informant aged about five years.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation when dead-body of the deceased was recovered then police dog squad reached at the house of the applicant and merely on this basis, he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits that however as per allegation when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and on his pointing out one pair anklet of the deceased was recovered and according to the prosecution, from the house of the applicant blood-stained soil was also recovered but entire recovery is false and planted one.

6. He further submits that even without any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above recoveries, it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of the deceased.

7. He further submits that even till date the alleged recovered blood-stained soil could not be connected with the instant crime.

8. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.07.2021 i.e. for last more than three and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

9. He further submits that from the compliance affidavit filed by the State, it reflects, till date only four prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total eighteen witnesses of the charge-sheet.

10. He further submits that from the order-sheet of the case, which has been annexed alongwith compliance affidavit filed by the State, it reflects that from several dates witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned.

11. He further submits that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail.

12. He further submits that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than three and half years, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

13. He further submits that however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offences.

14. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case in which five years old minor daughter of the informant has been murdered but he fairly conceded it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except recovery of anklet of the deceased and blood-stained soil, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

15. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.07.2021 i.e. for last more than three and half years and till date only four prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total eighteen witnesses of the charge-sheet.

16. He further could not dispute the fact that from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant caused delay in trial.

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

18. However, as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of five years old daughter of the informant but it reflects, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and only evidence against him is:- (a) his confessional statement; (b) on his pointing out anklet of the deceased was recovered and (c) from his house blood-stained soil was recovered. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of above evidence, at this stage, it is hard to believe that applicant committed the murder of the deceased specially considering the fact that except above recoveries, there is no other corroborative evidence against the applicant on record and till date the alleged recovered blood-stained soil could not be connected with the instant crime.

19. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 08.07.2021 i.e. for last more than three and half years and till date only four prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total eighteen witnesses of the charge-sheet and therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

20. Further, considering the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than three and half years and there is no evidence that he was responsible for delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed.

21. Further, however, apart from present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offences.

22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 23 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

24. Let the applicant- Moolchandra Raidas 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 :- 18.3.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad