Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109404 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42660 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramdhari Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Rajbhar,Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2024, under Sections 3/5/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Khanpur, District- Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court on 27.05.2024 and he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 04.04.2024 i.e. for last more than a year and till date, not even charges could be framed. 5. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and law is settled, on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submitted that considering the fact that till date even charges could not be framed and applicant is detained in jail, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of applicant has not be violated. 6. He further submitted that however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of five other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and out of five cases, four cases are of theft and although, remaining one case is of Section 25 Arms Act but in that case also applicant has been falsely implicated. 7. He further submitted that considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed after considering the fact that from the possession of applicant four country made pistols and cartridges were recovered but could not dispute the fat that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since April, 2024 i.e. for last more than a year and till date, even charges could not be framed. 9. Learned AGA however, further submitted that apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of five other cases but could not dispute the fact that out of five cases, four cases relate to theft and although, one case is of Section 25 Arms Act but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court after considering the facts of the case on merit but in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than a year and till date even charges could not be framed. 12. Further, however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of five other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and out of five cases, four cases relate of theft, although, remaining one case is of Section 25 Arms Act. 13. Further, law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed. 14. Further, law is also settled, on the ground of delay in trial, even in serious cases an accused can be released on bail, if delay in trial is not attributed to him. From perusal of the record, it could not be reflected that applicant is not responsible for delay in framing of charges. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant- Ramdhari Rajbhar 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 9.7.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad