Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109405 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8674 of 2024 Applicant :- Naresh Verma Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahadeo Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pusp Raj Singh Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pusp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ajeet Madhesia, learned brief holder for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 434 of 2023, under Sections 342, 376, 506 IPC & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Banda, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court on 17.08.2023 after considering the fact that victim in her both the statements recorded during investigation made allegation of rape against the applicant and she was below 18 years of age but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since May, 2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded. He further submitted that till date, out of 11 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 3 witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 4. He further submitted that victim i.e. prosecutrix of the case has already been examined by the trial court as P.W.2, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence if applicant is released on bail. 5. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submitted that there is no material available on record, which can suggest that applicant caused any delay in trail. 6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court. They further submitted that even prosecutrix is minor and she in her both the statements recorded during investigation stated that applicant committed rape upon her but could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than two years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded. They further could not dispute the fact that prosecutrix of the case has already been examined by the trial court and applicant is not having any criminal history. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit by this Court after considering the fact that prosecutrix of the case appears to be below 18 years of age and she in her both the statements recorded during investigation made allegation of rape against the applicant but it reflects, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 30.05.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. 10. Record also suggests that till date, out of 11 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 3 witnesses could be examined, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if there is undue delay in trial and an accused is not responsible for the delay then even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. From the record, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any delay in trial. Further, neither learned AGA nor learned counsel for the informant could place any material to show that applicant is responsible for delay in trial. 11. Further, as victim i.e. prosecutrix has already been examined by the trial court, therefore, submission made by learned counsel for applicant that if applicant is released on bail then there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence, cannot be brushed aside. 12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Naresh Verma 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 :- 9.7.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad