HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35318 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station Chitaipur, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.28166 of 2023. 4. He next submits that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 12.12.2022 i.e. for last three and half years and till date only one prosecution witnesses could be examined, however, in the charge sheet, there are total 35 witnesses and, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial. 5. He further argues, the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused and on its violation even in serious cases like murder, an accused can be released on bail. 6. He next submits that there is no evidence that the applicant is causing delay in trial in any manner. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pintu Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. He further argues, even it is a case of circumstantial evidence and evidence of last seen was also against co-accused Dablu. 8. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. 9. He next submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 10. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last almost three and half years and till date only one prosecution witness could be examined out of 35 witnesses. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits but it reflects it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 12.12.2022 i.e. for last almost three and half years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded. From the report of the court concerned it reflects till date only one prosecution witness could be examined, however, in the charge sheet, it appears there are as many as 35 witnesses. 13. Further even from the report of the court concerned it reflects inspite of the coercive measure, prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court and, therefore, it reflects without any fault of the applicant, trial of the case is still pending. 14. The law is settled, the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused and on its violation even in serious cases like murder, an accused can be released on bail. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of Maharashtra SLP (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026 while enlarging the accused BAIL No. 35318 of 2025 2 of murder on bail, who was in jail for last four years observes in paragraph no.6 as:- " 6. We are mindful of the fact that the petition is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately." 16. Further, even it reflects it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is not having any criminal history. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, and observations made by the Apex Court in the above cases, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant -Pintu Yadav 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. 20. 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. 21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts BAIL No. 35318 of 2025 3 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. May 12, 2026 Mini BAIL No. 35318 of 2025 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad