HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40350 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 830 of 2024, under Sections 105 BNS, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant but applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 105 BNS and he is in jail for last more than one and half years and till date not even single witness could be examined. He further submits, there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant is delaying trial. 6. He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having two criminal history but both the cases relate to minor offence. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant but could not dispute the fact that applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 105 BNS and he is in jail for last more than one and half years and till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined. He also could not dispute the fact that applicant is not causing delay in trial. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravi Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed but applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 105 BNS and he is in jail for last more than one and half years and from the report of the court concerned it reflects, till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined. From the report it could not be reflected, applicant is causing delay in trial. 10. Further, even from the record it could not be reflected that applicant was having intention to cause death of the deceased. 11. Further, apart from the present case applicant is however having criminal history of two other cases but both the cases relate to minor offence. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant - Ravi Kumar 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 BAIL No. 40350 of 2025 2 said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. March 18, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 40350 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad