Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81704 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8182 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Asif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 06.03.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1694 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)N of IPC and Sections 5J(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial. 5. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18142 of 2022. 6. earned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.12.2021 and not a single witness has been examined to date, as such, he is incarcerated for about three and a half years. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. It is also argued that the victim is 16 years old. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.12.2021 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the fact that no prosecution witness has been examined till date and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 8. The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. It emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial. 9. While granting bail to ex-West Bengal Minister in Partha Chatterjee v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention." "The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed the bench. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail." 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, age of the victim, nature of offence and the judgements of Supreme Court as referred above considering the period of incarceration coupled by the fact that no prosecution witness has been examined till date, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Mohd. Asif, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 16.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad