. Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84457 . Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13769 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Alias Siraj Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anant Kumar Mishra,Shashank Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for State. 2. This is third bail application filed by applicant-Sonu alias Siraj Ahmad in Case Crime No. 132 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Allahabad. First and second bail applications of applicant were rejected vide orders dated 12.02.2021 and 08.08.2022 and the relevant part of orders is mentioned hereinafter: Relevant part of order dated 12.02.2021: “7. It is a case where applicant is a named accused who was identified not only by Informant, who witnessed the offence, but by injured lady, Urmila also who named applicant as assailant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Bail granted to co-accused is either on the ground of parity or no specific ground is mentioned in orders of bail. Applicant has not come with clean hands before this Court and has not disclosed entire details of his criminal antecedents, which is not denied by counsel for the applicant. Applicant has 11 criminal cases, which involves cases under Sections 302, 307, 323, 308, 452 and also under Gangster Act. In case bail is granted, likelihood of threatening to witnesses cannot be ruled out at this stage as till date even charges are not framed against accused. In view of above, no case of bail is made out.” Relevant part of order dated 08.08.2022: “10. Law on bail is discussed in detail while rejecting first bail application. The Court is considering second bail application. Events which are relevant to consider are that after one and half years, trial is proceeded upto the stage of framing of charge only, therefore, it is proceeding in a snail pace. There is not likelihood that trial can be concluded at the earliest and that applicant is in jail for more than four years. Further, an FIR was lodged on 15.04.2021 against the applicant for alleged hatching of conspiracy for murder while in jail. However, considering his criminal history, in the event of bail, likelihood to influence the witnesses and likelihood of interference with trial cannot be ruled out. 11. The applicant could not get advantage of prolong incarceration of more than four years and that presently trial is at the stage of framing of charge only. Slow pace of trial is against the right of accused of speedy trial. However, considering the serious charge of murder and involvement of applicant in number of criminal cases and that in case of bail, possibility to influence the witnesses or to hamper trial by the applicant cannot be ruled out, therefore, at this stage bail cannot be granted. 12. In view of above, prayer for bail is rejected and the bail application is disposed of with the direction to Trial Court to conclude trial within one year and in case trial is not concluded within aforesaid period, the applicant is at liberty to approach this Court afresh for bail.” 3. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, Trial Court concerned has submitted report that out of 18 witnesses, statement of PW-1 is still not concluded as he has been cross-examined at length. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail for last more than seven years and trial is still not concluded. 5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for State submits that there are serious allegation against applicant of being main assailant. There are threats to prosecution witnesses and police protection is being provided and in case applicant is released on bail, there is likelihood that he will try to influence prosecution witnesses. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Aforesaid period of seven years is a very long period, which could be sufficient to grant bail. However, a factor which still goes adverse to applicant is that witnesses are given police protection and they are still under threat. 8. In the circumstances, application is rejected. However, it is directed that relevant material witnesses be examined within a period of three months and thereafter applicant can approach this Court or Trial Court concerned, as the case may be, alongwith status report. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad