HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34253 of 2025 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vidyadhar Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 66 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, Police Station- Tehbarpur, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of trial. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court on 26.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the rejection of the first bail application P.W.-1 has been examined before the trial court. He is brother of applicant and informant in this case, but he has not supported the prosecution case at all. The applicant is aged about 60 years and no specific role has been assigned to him in the commission of alleged offence.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 22.03.2024. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre- trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jagadish Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vidyadhar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC)LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for BAIL No. 34253 of 2025 2 cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 10, 2025 Abhishek BAIL No. 34253 of 2025 3 Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad