Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23341 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45466 of 2024 Applicant :- Vishnukant Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hariom Kamal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Hariom Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Kumar Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.81 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kon, District Sonbhadra, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 19.09.2019 against applicant and according to the FIR, marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the father of the applicant, which was his second marriage and with his previous marriage applicant was born and on 19.09.2019 applicant after entering in the house committed the murder of his daughter due to family dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits that from the FIR, it reflects, informant was not an eye-witness and he arrived at spot after the incident. 6. He further submits that during investigation, I.O. recorded statements of number of of witnesses but even from their statements, it could not be reflected that they were the eye- witnesses as it appears, they also arrived at spot after the incident. 7. He further submits that as applicant is the son of the first wife of the son-in-law of the informant, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. 8. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.09.2019 i.e. for last more than five years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded and considering this fact, a report was called from the court concerned, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects that till date only five prosecution witnesses could be examined and considering the slow speed of the trial, there is no hope of its early disposal. 9. He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the person, who committed the murder of the deceased but could not dispute the fact that neither from the FIR nor from the statements of the eye-witnesses, it is reflected that they witnessed the real incident. 11. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.09.2019 i.e. for last more than five years. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. As per allegation, applicant was the step son of the deceased and there was dispute between applicant and deceased and only due to this reason, he committed the murder of the deceased but it reflects, no one could see the real incident however according to the prosecution witnesses when they arrived at spot then applicant was running from the spot. 14. Further, from the record, it reflects that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.09.2019 i.e. for last more than five years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded and from perusal of the report of the court concerned, it reflects that till date only five prosecution witnesses could be examined and from the report, it could not be reflected that applicant is responsible for delay in trial. 15. Law is settled, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, he can be released on bail even in serious cases. Considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than five years and the fact that from the report of the court concerned, it could not be reflected that applicant is responsible for delay in trial, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. 16. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Vishnukant Gupta 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 18.2.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad