HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41850 of 2024 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. 2. This is second bail application. First bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satyendra Tiwari and Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Hariom with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.470 of 2023, under sections 323, 324, 504, 304 IPC, Police Station – Bhuta, District –Bareilly, during pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Rajbeer, husband of Shashi, with whom the deceased allegedly had a relationship, has already been exonerated. Out of the total 16 witnesses, eight have been examined and none of them have specifically implicated the applicant in the murder of the deceased. He further submits that the applicant has been detained in jail for a period of nearly two years, i.e. since 15.10.2023, seeing period of detention, he requests for grant of bail. He, therefore, prays that considering the period of detention as well as the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar, Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Vipin Gangwar, Vivek Gangwar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mohd Faiz Hariom .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) status of the trial, which is not likely to be concluded in near future, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history except the present case and is languishing in jail since 15.10.2023. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that eight prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have stated that the applicant was involved in the murder of the deceased, which was committed using a sharp-edged weapon. He further submits that there is no new ground as taken by the applicant, which entitled himself to be released on bail. Thus, the offence is grievous in nature. Hence the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. 6. Taking into account the gravity of the offense, the evidence presented, the involvement of the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for both parties, I discern no compelling reason to exercise my discretion in favor of the accused applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 8. However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. It goes without saying that if the prosecution witnesses are not turning up deliberately, then the court below has all the powers to adopt all the coercive measures provided under the Code in order to procure the presence of the witnesses. October 6, 2025 Jitendra/- BAIL No. 41850 of 2024 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad