Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66394 Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9786 of 2025 Applicant :- Sani @ Santosh Pathak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for State. 2. This is second bail application filed by applicant-Sani alias Santosh Pathak in Case Crime No. 113 of 2022, under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Hathras, District Hathras. First bail application of applicant was disposed of vide order dated 20.05.2024 by giving following reasons: “5. In aforesaid circumstances, considering allegations against applicant and nature of evidence (there is last seen witness and deadbody was found in house of applicant), this application is disposed of with liberty to applicant to approach again after a substantial period alongwith status of trial. Trial Court concerned is directed to expedite trial.” 3. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, Trial Court has submitted status report that out of 19 proposed prosecution witnesses, seven witnesses have been examined and remaining twelve witnesses will be examined within a short period. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused, i.e., father of applicant, has been granted bail. He further submits that during trial in the testimony, genesis of case is shown in a different manner. Even the recovery of dead body allegedly from the place of applicant was disputed. Trial is proceeding in a snail speed and applicant, who is in jail since 29.04.2022, i.e., for about three years, is entitled for bail. 5. Learned AGA appearing for State has opposed prayer for bail and submits that evidence is consistent against applicant. Not only dead body was recovered from the house of applicant but there is a motive also assigned as well as he was the last person to accompany deceased. 6. I have considered the above submissions. Witnesses have been cross-examined in detail. However, at this stage to state that there are substantial material contradiction would not be a correct approach specifically when examination-in-chief was consistent and witnesses have suffered a detail cross-examination. 7. In aforesaid circumstances, period of three years incarceration would not be a prolong detention period and since relevant witnesses are still be examined, therefore, there is likelihood that in case of bail applicant will try to influence them. 8. Accordingly, while rejecting this bail application, it is observed that Trial Court concerned shall make endeavour to conclude trial expeditiously and in case it is not concluded within a reasonable period, applicant will be at liberty to approach this Court again, alongwith status of trial. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad