Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133359 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17189 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Mohan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Annapurna Devi,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that on 16.05.2025 notice has been served to the informant of the case. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the informant, although, Ms. Annapurna Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Services is present. 2. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State and Ms. Annapurna Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Services. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 421 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 IPC & Sections 5(J)(2)/6 POCSO Act & Sections 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station- Khaga, District- Fatehpur, 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 on merit by this Court after considering the fact that victim was 14 years of age but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 25.07.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date, in spite of the repeated summons, none of the witnesses could appear before the trial court, therefore, without any fault of the applicant trial of the case is being delayed. He further submitted that 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 and considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not be violated. 5. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Services 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 has been dismissed on merit by this Court but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 25.07.2023 and since then not even a single prosecution witness could be examined. 7. They further could not dispute the fact that charges against the applicant were framed on 20.10.2023 and since then summons are being issued to the witnesses but they are not appearing before the court concerned. They further could not dispute the fact that from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant caused delay in trial. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed on merit by this Court but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 25.07.2023 i.e. for last more than two years and till date, not even a single prosecution witness could be examined. Record also suggests that on 20.10.2023 charges were framed and thereafter continuously summons are being issued to the witnesses but they are not appearing before the court concerned. 10. Further, from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any delay in trial, therefore, from the facts of the case, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not be violated. Law is settled, if fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused has been violated then even in serious cases, he can be released on bail considering his long incarceration. 11. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Ram Mohan 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 16. 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. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad