Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116234 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41753 of 2024 Applicant :- Vikas Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh,Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Shri Imran Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State apprise the Court that on 20.11.2024, notice has been served to the informant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant to oppose this second application for bail. 3. Heard Shri Ashutosh Singh & Shri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 4. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.66 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 302, 201, 376(2)n IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2023 after considering the fact that it is a case of rape and murder of a minor girl but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.02.2021 i.e. for last more than four and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. 6. He further submits that in the charge-sheet there are as many as sixteen witnesses and till date only six witnesses could be examined by the trial court and P.W.-6 was examined by the trial court on 24.07.2024 i.e. more than a year before and since then inspite of repeated summons, prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court and therefore, due to lackluster attitude of the prosecution witnesses trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 7. He further submits that order-sheets of the case have been annexed alongwith affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant second bail application and it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial. 8. He further submits 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 detained in jail for last more than four and half years and he is not responsible for delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated. 9. He further submits that even as far as merit of the case is concerned, however, on facts case is bad but, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except the evidence that before the death of the deceased, applicant had mobile conversation with her and on his pointing out her dead-body was recovered from a sugarcane field, there is no other cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant on record. 10. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history his credit. 11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2023 after considering the fact that it is a case of rape and murder of a minor girl but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.02.2021 i.e. for last more than four and half years and till date out of sixteen witnesses of the charge-sheet, only six witnesses could be examined by the trial court. 12. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no material available on record, on the basis of which, it can be reflected that applicant is responsible for delay in trial of the case. 13. He further could not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is having no criminal history his credit. 14. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has already been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that it is a case of rape and murder of a minor girl but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.02.2021 i.e. for last more than four and half years and till date out of sixteen witnesses of the charge-sheet, only six witnesses could be examined by the trial court. Order- sheets of the case also shows that statement of P.W.-6 was recorded by the trial court on 24.07.2024 i.e. more than a year before and thereafter inspite of repeated summons, prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court and from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant is instrumental in delaying the trial, therefore, prima-facie, it appears, without any fault of the applicant trial is pending only due to lackluster attitude of the prosecution witnesses. 16. Further, law is settled, 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. Considering the fact that applicant is detained in jail for last more than four and half years and he is not responsible for delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been violated. 17. Further, as far as merit of the case is concerned, however, allegation levelled against applicant is quite serious but it is a case of circumstantial evidence and it reflects, except the evidence that before the alleged rape and murder, he had mobile conversation with the deceased and on his pointing out her dead-body was recovered from a sugarcane field, there is no other cogent and admissible evidence against him on record. 18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history his credit. 19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant- Vikas 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. 22. 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. 23. 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 :- 17.7.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad