Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143645 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36499 of 2023 Applicant :- Sunder Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sudarshan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. Two supplementary affidavits filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shyam Sudarshan, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 135 of 2020, under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Jewar, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 27890 of 2020. 4. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only four witnesses have been examined to date and the applicant is incarcerated for five years and five months as he is in jail since 15.03.2020. It is also stated that the dead body of the deceased was recovered by breaking open her room and no other injury was observed on her body. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 5. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant being her husband is the main accused person and the FIR is prompt, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 6. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned on 04.08.2025. As per the said report, only four witnesses have been examined. 7. The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. It emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial. 8. While granting bail to ex-West Bengal Minister in Partha Chatterjee v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention." "The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed the bench. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail." 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Chauhan vs. State of U.P., AIR 2023 SC 2149, has granted bail to the appellant therein on the ground that the appellant has been in custody for nearly two years four months and only two witnesses had been examined out of 26 prosecution witnesses. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the judgements of Supreme Court as referred above and also considering the period of incarceration of the applicant coupled by the fact that only four witnesses has been examined during five and a half years of trial, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Sunder, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 21.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad