Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137105 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55403 of 2023 Applicant :- Raman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhole Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. By means of this second bail application, applicant Raman, who is involved in Case Crime No. 69 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, police station Pilkhuwan, district Hapur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28561 of 2022 with a direction to the trial Court to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that informant Vijendra and one eye-witness Vinod Kumar have already been testified before the trial Court but they did not support the prosecution case. Since trial of the applicant was going on, therefore, his first bail application was rejected vide order dated 02.01.2023. Thereafter, statement of PW-3 was recorded on 17.12.2022 and further on great effort even after issuance of non- bailable warrant, the statement of PW-4 was recorded on 27.02.2024 and since then no further prosecution witness has been examined and trial of the applicant is going on without any effective proceeding, hence in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 731, the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is languishing in jail since 08.02.2021, may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record including order-sheet of trial Court, which has been filed by the applicant alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 10.08.2025, I find that statement of PW-4 was recorded on 27.02.2024. Thereafter, following orders were passed :- (i) On 20.03.2024, no prosecution witness was present, hence summons were issued to prosecution witnesses Bijendra and Dr. Atul. (ii) On 26.06.2024 and 12.07.2024, no prosecution witness was present, hence bailable warrant was issued to prosecution witnesses Manoj and Rajendra. (iii) On 20.09.2024, no prosecution witness was present, hence non-bailable warrant and notice under Section 350 Cr.P.C. were issued to Constable Rahul, Constable Sonu and Constable Monu. (iv) On 13.11.2024, bailable warrant was issued to prosecution witnesses Buddhan and Constable Rahul. (v) On 10.12.2024, summon was issued to Dr. Atul Anand. (vi) On 21.01.2025, 20.03.2025 and 30.04.2025, non- bailable warrants were issued against prosecution witnesses Buddhan and Rahul and bailable warrant was issued to Dr. Atul Anand. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the trial of the applicant is being delayed by the prosecution itself, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Raman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad