Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82665 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24371 of 2024 Applicant :- Anurag Alias Jai Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Pandey,Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2023. 3. Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 17 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Amaupur, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2019, as such he has been incarcerated for more than six years and his Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has no criminal history. The instant case is of circumstantial evidence. There is no recovery from the applicant. The trial is moving at snail's pace and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused and is the husband of the deceased and had committed murder of his wife by shooting her from close range thereby causing her instantaneous death. The prosecution story matches with the post mortem report. Even the FSL report of the CMP recovered from the place of occurrence matches with the bullet which caused the death of the victim. 9. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial Court. The detailed report which has been produced before this Court indicates that statements of three witnesses is complete and the examination-in-chief of PW-4 was recorded in court but the said witness PW-4 Jyoti Yadav is not appearing since 03.05.2024. The case was adjourned on 26 occasions due to non-appearance of the said witness PW-4. The Final report (Charge sheet) indicates that there are 35 witnesses to be examined but at the present pace, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. 10. The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. It emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial. 11. While granting bail to ex-West Bengal Minister in Partha Chatterjee v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention." "The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed the bench. 12. 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." 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail fore more than six years coupled by the fact that there are 35 witnesses to be examined and the trial is moving at snail's pace, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Anurag Alias Jai Kumar , 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad