Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14051 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42835 of 2024 Applicant :- Sajid Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Session Trial No.427 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.299 of 2018, under Sections 302, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. 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 on merit by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J. vide order dated 19.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16048 of 2020 but as His Lordship has demitted his office, therefore, the instant second bail application is listed today before this Bench. 4. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 20.04.2018 and after considering his long incarceration of more than six years, this Court called a report from the court concerned about current status of the trial and report submitted by the court concerned is on record and from its perusal, it reflects that in the charge-sheet there are as many as 21 witnesses and till date only seven prosecution witnesses could be examined and therefore, it reflects that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 5. He further submits that all the witnesses of facts have already been examined, therefore, there is no chance of any tampering with the prosecution evidence. 6. He further submits that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and even on the basis of long incarceration in serious matters, an accused can be released on bail. He placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755. 7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal of ten other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and however, he was also made accused in two cases of Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. but in both the cases, he has been acquitted by the trial court. 8. He further submits that out of remaining eight cases, three cases were of Arms Act and one case was of U.P. Gangsters Act and in all the cases, applicant is on bail. 9. He further submits that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, applicant should be released on bail. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submit that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J. vide order dated 19.10.2020 but as His Lordship has demitted his office, therefore, the instant second bail application is listed today before this Bench as this bench is dealing with such matters. 13. Further, however, record suggests that as per allegation, applicant caused firearm injury to the brother of the informant due to which, he died but it appears in the present matter applicant is in jail since 20.04.2018 i.e. for last more than six years and nine months and from the report of court concerned dated 13.01.2025, it reflects that in the charge-sheet there are as many as 21 witnesses and till date only seven prosecution witnesses could be examined and therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 14. Further, from the report dated 23.01.2025 transmitted by the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant caused delay in trial and therefore, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed. 15. Further, from the report of the court concerned, it also reflects that all the witnesses of facts have already been examined and considering this fact, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of any tampering with the prosecution evidence if applicant would be released on bail, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 16. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal of ten other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and however, he was also made accused in two cases of Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. but in both the cases, he has been acquitted by the trial court. 17. Further, out of remaining eight cases, three cases were of Arms Act and one case was of U.P. Gangsters Act and it appears, in all the cases, applicant is on bail. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, particularly the long incarceration of the applicant of more than six years and nine months and the observation made by the Apex Court in the cases of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari (supra) and K.A. Najeeb (supra), in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Sajid Ali, 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 27.1.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad