Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31467 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6668 of 2025 Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachchida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.1024 of 2009, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that it is a old case of the year, 2009. The F.I.R. was lodged on 18.09.2009 with regard to an incident, which took place on 17.09.2009 for the offence under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad. The applicant was granted bail vide order dated 12.07.2013 by Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, charge was framed against the applicant and he participated in the trial up-to 10.06.2016 but from 11.07.2016, he became absent and absconded, hence, the trial proceedings was held up. After great efforts, applicant was arrested on 22.10.2024 and his bail application has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 21.12.2024. Hence, the applicant has preferred the instant bail application before this Court with the stand that he was informed that since the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, there was no possibility of his conviction, therefore, there is no need for his appearance before the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant undertake that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the trial. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the statement of four prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and efforts are being made from the side of the prosecution for early conclusion of the trial. Considering the conduct of the applicant that he has misused the liberty of bail and was absconding for about 08 years, 03 months and 11 days, he is not entitled to be released on bail otherwise there is every possibility of his absconding again. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that all the prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined and examination of only formal witnesses are yet to be made. 7. Considering the stage of trial as well as conduct of the applicant as noted above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is directed to ensure the presence of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial Court, so that the trial of the applicant may be concluded at the earliest. 10. However, considering the fact that it is a old case of the year, 2009, the trial Court is also directed to make an endeavour to conclude the the trial, expeditiously, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 11. It is made clear that any observations made in this order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect merit of the trial. 12. Copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial Court as well as to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad within 48 hours for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad