HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23096 of 2023 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. 2-By means of this second bail application, applicant-Ram Singh Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No. 267 of 2020, under Sections 302/34 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50609 of 2021. 4-As per the prosecution case in brief, informant who is a resident of same village has informed the concerned police personnel that on 07.10.2020 at about 02:30 p.m., the deceased Bakhuram Yadav has been done to death by his relative Ram Singh Yadav (applicant) with an intent to grab the land of the deceased. As per the F.I.R., the death of the deceased has been caused due to fire made by the applicant. 5-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2020 but till date, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of which one of the prosecution witness, namely, Sabhajeet Maurya (PW-3) has been declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case, therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 25.10.2020 may be enlarged on bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Narain Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ram Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that it is a case of murder and except PW-3 Sabhajeet Maurya, all other prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case in their examination-in-chief, hence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 7-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that out of sixteen prosecution witnesses, eight prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and the trial of the applicant is proceeding. Since the allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 483 B.N.S.S. while considering the bail of the applicant is not recording any finding on merits with regard to the statement of prosecution witnesses so that it may not affect the trial of the applicant. However considering the statement of prosecution witnesses prima-facie, stage of the trial and in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I find no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail, who is main accused in this case. 8-Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. 9-However considering the detention period of the applicant, Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur is directed to ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statement on the same day without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. 10-It is made clear that any observation made in this order is for the purpose of disposal of bail application and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 11-Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and concerned trial court within three days' for necessary information and compliance. September 17, 2025 Saurabh BAIL No. 23096 of 2023 2 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad