HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1386 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.366 of 2024, under Sections 307, 324, 325, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Jalalabad, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.9.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32922 of 2024. Vide said order, bail applications of two other accused persons, namely, Durgesh Singh and Rakesh Singh, were allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that only two witnesses of fact i.e. informant and injured person, have been examined to date. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.5.2024, as such, the fundamental rights of applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pankaj Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. 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." 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that only two witness have been examined to date and the period of incarceration of applicant being about sixteen months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Pankaj Singh, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant BAIL No. 1386 of 2025 2 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 18, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 1386 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad