HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 575 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this second bail application filed in case crime No.163 of 2022 under sections 302, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Chhapia, district Gonda, the first having been rejected vide order dated 3.1.2024 passed in Bail No.4270 of 2023, complainant's counsel, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2.The order dated 3.1.2024 (supra) is extracted below : "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.163 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Chhapia, District Gonda. 4. It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 26.06.2022 at about 01:15 pm deceased Durgesh Singh @ Bholu Singh had organized a bhandara. Upon the information given by Avdhesh Verma, who was present in his bhandara, three persons namely Vikram Patel @ Vikki, Baljeet Verma and one unknown person came and shot three bullets to the deceased and fled away. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He is not named in the F.I.R. In the statement of Sunil Kumar Singh, no allegation has been levelled against the applicant. He has further submitted that the complainant of the case has filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5897 of 2022 and in para 9 of that writ petition he has not disclosed the name of the present applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, Rajendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Abhisar Dev, Apoorv Dev Abhishek Verma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It has been submitted by them that in the post mortem report, there are three ante mortem firearm injuries. Cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem firearm injuries. They have also invited attention of the Court towards the statement of five eye witnesses namely, Abhishek Singh, Jai Prakash, Devi Sharan, Raghuveer Singh and Sunil Singh who have given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer and have alleged that the applicant along with the co-accused persons have committed murder of the deceased by the firearm. 7. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also considering the statement of five eye witnesses of the gruesome day light murder which corroborates the ante mortem firearm injury, this Court finds that its a heinous offence and not a fit case where bail can be granted to the applicant thus, the bail application is hereby rejected. 8. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order." 3.A perusal of the order, above extracted, shows that while rejecting the first bail application, the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified of the said order. It is submitted that the certified copy of the order was filed on 8.1.2024 before the trial court. In spite of order passed by this Court for conclusion of trial within one year, only one prosecution witness has been examined so far although more than one year has passed. He submits that there are 22 more witnesses which have to be examined. Out of 21, there are 4 more eye witnesses. The pace from which the trial is going on is very slow and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is submitted that the applicant is behind bar since 26.9.2022 which is a fresh ground of moving present bail application. 4.Learned counsel has drawn attention of this court towards order sheet of the trial court. It is submitted that the trial has not been adjourned at the instance of the applicant. On most of the occasions, it is the prosecution at whose instance, the trial has been halted. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in trial and should not be punished with prolong incarceration as an under trial prisoner only because the prosecution has failed to produce its witnesses or sought adjournments. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of BAIL No. 575 of 2025 2 fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 5.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. could not assign any reason as to why the prosecution has not cooperated with the trial to conclude trial within the time fixed by this court while rejecting the first bail application. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has no prior criminal history. despite order passed by this court on 3.1.2024, the trial court has not been able to examine more than one prosecution witness, 21 witnesses are left to be examined from the prosecution, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the applicant is not named in the first information report, the applicant is in jail since 26.9.2022, i.e. for the last about three years, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra and another Crl. appeal No.2787 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl) No.3809 of 2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 7.Let the applicant Abhishek Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 163 of 2022 under sections 302, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Chhapia, district Gonda, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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 BAIL No. 575 of 2025 3 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. (v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS). 8.The application is allowed accordingly. September 3, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 575 of 2025 4 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench