HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7375 of 2023 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 5.10.2020 at about 9.00 pm, a lady came running towards the informant in a half burnt condition and told that her name is Kranti. She was in relation with one Pratap (applicant). She wanted to marry him, although she was already married with an elder person. It is alleged that on that day, the accused-applicant and his accomplice Kaushal took her on the motorcycle from Shahjahanpur and near Village Devkali, she has been set on fire by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. The co-accused Kaushal has already been granted bail vide order dated 14.7.2025 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4712 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant seeks parity. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in re; Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satyendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pratap .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground. Besides, he has referred the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505, wherein it has been held that if all fact/ material witnesses have been examined, the bail application of the accused may be considered. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, all the three fact/ material witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 7.10.2020. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is ante- mortem burn injury. The deceased before death while giving statement under Section 161 CrPC has stated that petrol was poured on her by the applicant and she was set on fire by the co-accused Kaushal. In the statement under Section 164 CrPC, she has stated that both the applicant and the co-accused Kaushal have poured petrol on her and have set her ablaze. When she cried, the locals came to save and she was admitted in the hospital. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, bail order of the co-accused Kaushal so also the fact that all the three fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail for more than 4 years and 11 months i.e., since 7.10.2020; the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future as well as in view of the aforesaid judgements of the Apex Court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. BAIL No. 7375 of 2023 2 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Pratap involved in Case Crime No. 338 of 2020, under Sections 326, 366, 302, 368, 34 IPC, Police Station- Pisawan, District- Sitapur, 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 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 in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S. September 17, 2025 Shravan BAIL No. 7375 of 2023 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench