Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21806 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43477 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- J Shubham,Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 286 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 IPC, and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Maudarwaja, District- Farrukhabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits however this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but his first bail application was dismissed for non-prosecution and his second bail application was dismissed by this Bench on merit vide order dated 11.8.2023 after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife sustained number of injuries and doctor also noted blood on her private part but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 25.10.2019 i.e. for last more than five years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. 5. He further submits from the order sheet of the case which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, it reflects P.W..-8 is not appearing before the court concerned for his cross examination therefore it appears without the fault of the applicant trial of the case is being lingered on. 6. He next submits, statement of the doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased has been recorded by the trial court which has been annexed at page 111 of the paper book and from his statement it reflects that none of the injuries sustained by deceased were sufficient to cause her death and she died due to septicemia. 7. He further submits, doctor also opined that deceased did not sustained any injury on her private part and possibility cannot be ruled out that due to mensuration blood was present on her vagina. 8. He next submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be released on bail. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. This is the third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but it appears that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution and however his second bail application was dismissed on merit by this court after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased and his wife sustained number of injuries and doctor also noted blood on her vagina but it relects in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 25.10.2019 i.e. for last more than five years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. From the order sheet of the case which has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, it reflects for several dates P.W..-8 is not appearing before the court concerned for his cross examination and therefore from the record it could not be reflected that applicant is responsible for delay in trial. 12. Further, law is settled, right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation he can be released on bail even in serious cases. Further, however deceased sustained number of injuries on her person but as per the doctor Paritosh Shukla (P.W.-5) none of the injuries were sufficient to cause her death. Further, from his statements it also reflects that even possibility cannot be ruled out that due to mensuration the blood would have been found on her vagina. 13. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Arvind Singh 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Neeraj Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad