HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13924 of 2025 Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Vijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application filed by the present applicant has been rejected by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court by means of a detailed order dated 11.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16268 of 2023 (Vikrant Vs. State of U.P.), a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the bail application. The applicant- Vikrant, has filed this second bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 116 of 2022, under Sections 342, 364, 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli, during the pendency of the trial, who is incarcerated in jail since 18.4.2022. In support of this second bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the entire submissions made in the first bail application, which are not necessary to mention herein again by this Court. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecution witnesses have been examined by the Trial Court. The case is at the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has cooperated during trial. The recovery of pistol and cartridges do not match with the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Yadav, Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Daga, Birendra Singh Khokher, G.A. Vikrant .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) allegations levelled against the applicant. There are material contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court while rejecting the first bail application of applicant had directed the Trial Court to decide the case expeditiously, but till date, the same has not been brought to its logical end. Learned counsel for the applicant submits an accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab & Another [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 8523/2024] decided on 9.9.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that fundamental right of applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated as he has been incarcerated for a substantial period of time for no fault of his. In support of his submission, he has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41474 of 2024 (Sarvajeet Singh versus State of U.P.) decided on 24.1.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FSL report dated 28.9.2022 submitted by the prosecution, which relates to the blood spots found upon the recovered items, has concluded, in the negative and no opinion has been expressed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution, two country made pistols (7.65 mm) have been shown to be recovered on the pointing out of present applicant and co-accused Arjun and empty cartridge (7.65 mm) and two bullet like materials were shown to be recovered from the vehicle in question. As per FSL Report dated 23.9.2022, the recovered used bullets and empty cartridges have not been used in the country made pistols shown to be recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that case is at the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and a direction be issued to the trial court to conclude and decide the case within shortest span of time. Considering all above facts and circumstances, report of FSL, delay in BAIL No. 13924 of 2025 2 conclusion of trial, case laws cited by learned counsel for the applicant, long period of incarceration, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Vikrant, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Taking note of the fact that the case is at the stage of recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Court deems it appropriate to direct that the trial be concluded within six months. August 27, 2025 pks BAIL No. 13924 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad