Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65469 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8351 of 2025 Applicant :- Naseem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aamir Nizam,Shabana Nizam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Ms. Shabana Nizam, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant second application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2019, under Sections 302, 392, 411, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhana Rani (Thakur), J. vide order dated 03.12.2022 and as Her Lordship has already demitted her office, therefore the instant second bail application of the applicant is listed today before this Bench as this Bench is dealing with such matters. 4. She further submits that the instant second bail application is being pressed mainly on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.05.2019 i.e. for last almost six years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. 5. She further submits after considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned about current status of the trial of the case, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects, till date only eight prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 32 witnesses of the charge-sheet, therefore, there is no hope of its early disposal. 6. She further submits that applicant is not responsible for delay in trial and it is a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, considering the long incarceration of the applicant, he should be released on bail. 7. She further submits that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but he could not dispute the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the present matter applicant is jail for last almost six years and till date out of total 32 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only eight could be examined by the trial court. 9. Learned A.G.A. further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhana Rani (Thakur), J. vide order dated 03.12.2022 but as Her Lordship has already demitted her office, therefore the instant second bail application of the applicant is listed today before this Bench as this Bench is dealing with such matters. 12. Further, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant is in jail for last almost six years and considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned about current status of the trial of the case and from its perusal, it reflects, till date only eight prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 32 witnesses of the charge-sheet. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no hope of early disposal of the trial of the case, cannot be completely ruled out. 13. Further, there is no material available on record on the basis of which, it can be said that applicant is responsible for delay in trial. 14. Further, law is settled, 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 and considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost six years, it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. 15. Further, that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant- Naseem Ahmad 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 28.4.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad