Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56756 Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45429 of 2024 Applicant :- Fareed Ahmad @ Juganu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Ojha,Sumit Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. This is third bail application. First and second bail applications were rejected vide orders dated 04.04.2024 and 12.08.2024 and for reference, relevant part of both bail rejection orders are quoted below :- “04.04.2024 :- 1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A for State. 2. This bail application is pending for the last three years. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he is recently engaged and he has to take instructions about present status of trial as well as the nature of evidence before the Court and fairly submits that this application be disposed of with liberty to file afresh with better particulars after reasonable time. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances considering the above submission without making any comment into the merits of case, the present bail application is disposed of with aforesaid liberty.” “12.08.2024 :- 7. I have considered the submissions and considering that applicant is facing trial for offence of murder and there is only a single eye witness whose examination in chief was concluded on 11.08.2022, however, thereafter he is not cooperating during trial. 8. Since there is only one eye witness to occurrence, therefore, his cross examination has to be concluded expeditiously and at this stage, if applicant is granted bail, possibility to influence eye witness does exist. 9. In view of aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any ground to consider prayer for bail at this stage. 10. Accordingly, bail application is rejected.” 2. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, a status report dated 20.12.2024 is submitted by trial Court that out of proposed 11 witnesses, till date only 1 witness is examined and trial could be concluded within 6 months. 3. Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail for about 4 years and 5 months and trial is proceeding in snail speed. 4. Learned counsel further refers some part of statement of PW-1 that it may not be an eye-witness account. 5. Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA has opposed the bail and submits that at this stage, Court may not venture into contradictions in testimony since any observation of this Court would adverse case of either party. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record. 7. No doubt, trial is proceeding in snail speed, however, considering the nature of allegations against applicant, at this stage, detention period of 4 years and 5 months could not be considered to be a prolong detention period as well as Court cannot go deep into contradictions of testimony, if any, since it would be a matter of trial. 8. In view of above, while rejecting prayer for bail, it is observed that in case trial is not substantially progressed within 8 months from today, the applicant will be at liberty to approach this Court or trial Court, as the case may be, along with status. 9. Trial Court is expected to conclude the trial expeditiously and in order to ensure presence of witnesses, if necessary, coercive measures may be taken. 10. Bail application stands disposed of with above observations. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad