Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72876 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11146 of 2025 Applicant :- Nazim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Singh,Sanjay Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.77 of 2016, under Sections 302, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Kudarki, District Moradabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. vide order dated 22.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3772 of 2024 but as his Lordship has already demitted his office and this Court is dealing with such matters, therefore, second bail application of the applicant is listed before this Court. He next submits, he is pressing the instant second bail application on the sole ground that applicant is in jail since 30.4.2016 i.e for last more than nine years and till date trial could not be concluded. 4. He further submitted that even from the order passed by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. on the first bail application which has been annexed at page 14A of the paper book, it reflects that as trial of the case, in view of this Court was at fag end, therefore, without touching merit of the case, first bail application of the applicant was dismissed. He next submitted that since then more than a year has been passed but till date trial of the could not be concluded. 5. He further submitted that it is not a case of direct evidence and it is a case which is based on circumstantial evidence. 6. He next submitted that even in the meantime co-accused Raju has been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 62 of the paper book. He further submitted that therefore, considering the long incarceration of more than nine years, applicant should be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and applicant is also having criminal history of seven cases and therefore, merely on the ground of long incarceration of nine years, he should not be released on bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. but as his Lordship has already demitted his office and this Court is dealing with such matters, therefore, instant second bail application of the applicant is listed before this Court. The instant second bail application is being pressed on the sole ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than 9 years. Considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned which is now on record and from its perusal however it reflects that prosecution evidence has already been concluded and about a year before even the statements of accused persons have been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. but surprisingly till date trial of the case could not be concluded and therefore, it reflects trial of the case is moving with languid pace and considering the long incarceration of 9 years of the applicant it cannot be said that applicant is responsible for delay in trial and his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. 10. Further however, as per instructions of learned AGA, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of seven other cases but this Court is of the view that merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, he cannot be detained in jail for ever without trial. 11. Further, even present case appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence and one of the co-accused Raju has already been released on bail. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly long incarceration of the applicant of more than nine years, 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-Nazim, 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 said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad