HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9517 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned AGA for the State of U.P. 2. This is third application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 130/2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 302 of I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow. 3. The first application No. 11532/2022 was rejected by means of an order dated 11.10.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the second application No. 1798/2025 was rejected by means of an order dated 21.05.2025. 4. The third application has been filed on 25.09.2025 i.e. merely about 4 months since rejection of the second bail application, on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial and long incarceration of the applicant. The second bail rejection order dated 21.05.2025 also deals with the ground of bail in the following words:- "8. The co-accused persons Alkesh and Smt. Shanti Devi have been ordered to be released on bail merely on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial, without adverting to the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 9. Although, the delay is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while deciding a bail application, the bail application cannot be allowed on the sole ground of delay, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sheo Prakash Singh, Mohd. Rais Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bablu Rawat .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) when the allegations levelled are heinous in nature and there is ample evidence to support the allegation. When the deceased's 8 years old daughter was an eye witness of the incident and she categorically stated that her grand mother and bua had poured kerosene on the body of her mother and her father (the applicant) had set her ablaze, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts to not warrant exercise of discretion of this court by enlarging the applicant on bail." 5. Therefore, when the offence alleged is heinous in nature, daughter of the applicant and the deceased is the eye witness who has supported the prosecution case in her statement before the Investigating Officer as well as in her statement before the Court and no major discrepancy has come to light in the statement of the witness, mere delay in disposal of trial would not make out a ground for allowing the third bail application, more so when the second bail application has been rejected after considering this ground, on 21.05.2025. 6. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant is also rejected. November 20, 2025 Pradeep/- BAIL No. 9517 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench