Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39789 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43741 of 2024 Applicant :- Amarjeet Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram,Kamlesh Kumar Rajbhar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Kailash Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant third application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.157 of 2019, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 324, 323, 147, 148, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sarpatahan, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his fist bail application was dismissed by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX, J. but His Lordship has already demitted his office and his second bail application was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 13.10.2023 and he is pressing the instant third bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 23.06.2019 i.e. for last more than five and half years and till date only two prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 19 witnesses of the charge-sheet and cross-examination of P.W.-3 is under way, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace. 4. He further submits that after considering the entire facts of the case, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial, which is now on record and from its perusal, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any delay in trial. 5. He further submits that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. 6. He further submits that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than five 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 infringed. 7. He further submits that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and applicant was the principal accused, who caused injuries due to which deceased died but could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his fist bail application was dismissed by Hon'ble Anil Kumar- IX, J. but His Lordship has already demitted his office and his second bail application was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 13.10.2023. The instant third bail application is being pressed on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 23.06.2019 i.e. for last more than five and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. After considering the long incarceration of the applicant of last more than five and half years, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial, which is now on record and from its perusal, it is reflected that till date only two prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 19 witnesses of the charge-sheet and cross-examination of P.W.-3 is under way, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 11. Further, from report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any delay in trial. 12. Further, the law is settled, right of speedy trial is the 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 in jail in the present matter for last more than five and half years and there is no material which can suggests that he is responsible for delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. 13. Further, applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Amarjeet 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 19.3.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad