Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44891 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 341 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh,Brij Mohan Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwas, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present applicant is in jail since 08.09.2020 in case crime no. 129 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B, 34, 427 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station Hanswar District Ambedkar Nagar. 3. This is the second bail application. 4. The first bail application has been rejected by Hon. Pankaj Bhatia, J. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7001 of 2022 vide order dated 10.07.2023. 5. While rejecting the first bail application, this Court directed the learned trial court in paragraph 5 that the trial be concluded with expedition, preferably within a period of one year and if the trial does not conclude, the applicant may apply for bail afresh. 6. Sri Amar Singh has stated that about more than two years period has been passed after passing the aforesaid rejection order. He has submitted that on 02.12.2023, the charges have been framed, but not a single witness has been examined till date. There are 64 witnesses, but keeping in view the pace of trial, there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future. Sri Amar Singh has stated that since this is the second bail application, therefore, he shall not address the Court on the merits, but he is pressing the bail application on the point that despite the specific direction being issued to conclude the trial within one year, what to say to conclude the trial within period of one year, even no witnesses have been examined till date. Therefore, this is the clear-cut disobedience of the order of this Court. So, Sri Singh has stated that keeping in view the total period of incarceration of the present applicant in jail, i.e., more than five years and the fact that the direction of this Court is flouted and no prosecution witnesses have been examined, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. The present applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 22 of the bail application. 7. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that specific role of firing has been attributed to the present applicant, but so far as the pace of trial is concerned, he has nothing to say. He has also submitted that after the direction being passed by this Court, at least some witnesses should have been examined but this is a very sorry state of affair that no prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, direction may be issued to expedite the trial. 8. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2020 and more than five years period has been passed; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; the judgement of Apex Court in Re:- Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606 granting bail to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration of that accused, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Neeraj Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 11. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, without adjourning the case for any unnecessary reason. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench