Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35087 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40970 of 2024 Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manav Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District- Auraiya, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and he is husband of the deceased and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 18.02.2018 i.e. for last more than 7 years and till date, only 3 witnesses could be examined out of total 14 witnesses of the charge sheet and, therefore, trial of the case is moving with language pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 4. He further submitted 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. He further submitted that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than 7 years, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Case of Tapas Kumar Palit vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 SCC Online SC 322. 5. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and applicant is the husband of the deceased and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that his wife died due to throttling within seven years of her marriage and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than seven years and till date, out of 14 witnesses of the charge sheet, only three witnesses could be examined. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed after considering the fact that he is the husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage due to throttling in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but it reflects in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than 7 years and considering this fact, a report was called from the court concerned, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects that only 3 witnesses could be examined out of total 14 witnesses of the charge sheet and, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of early disposal of the trial. 9. 9. Further, after considering the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Tapas Kumar Palit (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the applicant, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even in serious cases, on the ground of long incarceration, an accused can be released on bail and if an accused is detained in jail for last more than seven years then it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. 10. Further, from the report of the court concerned, it also reflects that witnesses are reluctant to appear before the court concerned and some accused have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, from the report of the court concerned, it reflects that without any fault of the applicant trial of the case is being lingered on. 11. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Avanish Kumar 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 :- 10.3.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad