HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10918 of 2024 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. 2. Heard Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 887 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 174 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Dataganj, District- Budaun, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2023 primarily on the ground that applicant is an absconder but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 23.05.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded. 5. He further submitted that considering long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of trial, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects, out of 17 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 3 witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, Ashish Kumar, Girish Singh, Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, Naman Kishor Sharma, Ram Babu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Surjeet .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He further submitted that there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial. 7. He further submitted that as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however, applicant was husband of the deceased and deceased died due to burn injury but actually it is a case of accident and accidentally, deceased and applicant both sustained burn injuries and both were admitted to hospital and applicant was discharged from hospital on 31.10.2012 and a day before i.e. on 30.10.2012, FIR of the present case was lodged. 8. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court on the ground that applicant is an absconder but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant. 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 this Court after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and he, prima facie, appears to be an absconder as he appeared after 11 years but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 23.05.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded. 12. From the report of the trial court, which was submitted by the court concerned, pursuant to the order of this Court, it reflects, till date only 3 prosecution witness could be examined, however, in the charge sheet there are 17 prosecution witnesses, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial. 13. Further, from the report of the court concerned dated 04.03.2025, it also reflects that in spite of repeated summons issued to the prosecution witnesses, they are not appearing before the trial court, therefore, it reflects, however, applicant was an absconder and he could only be appeared after 11 years but for the last more than two years he is in jail and since then, there is no allegation that he is not cooperating with the trial, rather from the report BAIL No. 10918 of 2024 2 of the court concerned, it reflects that prosecution witnesses are not appearing before the trial court. 14. 14. Further, as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however it reflects, applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died due to burn injury but in the incident, it reflects that applicant has also sustained burn injury and he was also admitted to hospital along with deceased but deceased unfortunately died and applicant survived and was discharged from hospital on 31.10.2012 and a day before i.e. on 30.10.2012, FIR of the present case was lodged. 15. 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. 16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 17. Further, law is also settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Surjeet 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. 21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be BAIL No. 10918 of 2024 3 at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 22. 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. September 18, 2025 #Vik/- BAIL No. 10918 of 2024 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad