Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3234 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43632 of 2024 Applicant :- Jagat Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh,Arvind Kumar Tripathi,Urvashi Kunwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sayyed Sanawar, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2019, under Sections 302, 307, 201 IPC, Police Station Bhamaura, District Bareilly during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court on merit vide order dated 17.11.2023 after considering the statement of sole eye witness Satyaveer Singh recorded during investigation but when he was examined by the trial court then however he stated against the applicant in his examination-in-chief but during his cross examination dated 06.02.2023 he categorically stated that father of the deceased informed him that applicant would have committed the alleged crime and this fact suggests that actually he could not witness the real culprit. He further submits, except the witness Satyaveer Singh there is no eye witness account. 4. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.08.2019 i.e. for last more than five years, therefore, considering his long incarceration of more than five years, applicant should be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and there is eye witness account and Satyaveer Singh is eye witness and after considering his statement the first bail application was dismissed but learned AGA could not dispute the fact that during trial when Satyaveer Singh was examined by the trial court then he in his cross examination dated 06.02.2023 stated that father of the deceased informed him that applicant would have committed the murder of his son as he is having enmity with him. 6. 6. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 19.08.2019 i.e. for last more than five years. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court on merit after considering the statement of sole eye witness Satyaveer Singh recorded during investigation and it also reflects that during trial in his examination-in-chief, however, Satyaveer Singh stated against the applicant but from perusal of the record, it reflects that in his cross examination dated 06.02.2023 he stated that father of the deceased informed him that applicant would have committed the murder of his son as he is having enmity with him and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually sole eye witness Satyaveer Singh could not witness the real culprit cannot be ruled out at this stage. 9. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 19.08.2019 i.e. for last almost five and half years. 10. Law is settled that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious offences an accused can be released on bail and considering the fact that applicant is in jail for last more than five years it cannot be said that his fundamental right has not been infringed. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755 categorically held that even if allegations are serious then also on the ground of long incarceration an accused can be released on bail. 12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant - Jagat Singh 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 :- 7.1.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad