Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7263 of 2025 Applicant :- Rambahori Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Kishan,Ashok Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chandra Pandey,Sumit Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. This is the second bail application. Today when the matter is taken up none appears on behalf of the applicant to press the bail application. Name of counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list. The applicant cannot go unrepresented. If the bail is listed before the Court it has to be heard on its merits. The applicant is in jail and like many other litigants are not in a position to oversee the diligent prosecution of their case or check the professional negligence on part of the counsel. The applicant comes under the category of "circumstances of underserved want" in terms of Section 12(e) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The applicant cannot be left to his own devices and is entitled to legal aid by this Court. The matter cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution in view of the judgement rendered by this Court in Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18536 of 2020. The Court has hence appointed Sri Mashhood Abbas, as amicus curiae to represent the applicant and assist the Court. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2023 at Police Station Girwan,, District Banda under Section 302 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 10.06.2023. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 01.08.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Lal Bahadur Yadav, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial. 2. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence. 3. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings. 4. The affidavit filed by the Joint Director (Prosecution) Banda discloses that all prosecution evidence has been completed. The stage is set for final argument. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing any of the witnesses. 5. Continued imprisonment of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Any further incarceration would be to the detriment of the defence of the applicant and contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. 6. This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while enlarging an accused on bail examined the right of accused for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held: "Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard." 7. Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 8. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 9. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In wake of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Rambahori be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. It is further directed that in case the applicant does not cooperate in the trial or adopt dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court. The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Banda for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above. A copy of this order translated in Hindi shall be provided to the accused in jail through the District Legal Services Authority. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Shri Lal Bahadur Yadav, amicus curiae. The High Court Legal Services Committee may kindly consider the payment of usual remuneration to Shri Lal Chandra Yadav, Adv. Roll A/L 0569/2019 who represented the applicant as amicus curiae before this Court. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Pravin Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad