HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25090 of 2025 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This is second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26385 of 2024 was dismissed by me vide order dated 13.12.2024. 3. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 349 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 302, 323, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the instant case, the applicant is in jail since 20.05.2020 and has undergone more than five years of incarceration in jail. He has further submitted that in the instant case, there are as many as twelve prosecution witnesses to be examined, however, till date, the statement of only two prosecution witnesses has been recorded and further ten prosecution witnesses are yet to be produced before the trial court for recording of their testimonies. It is further submitted that the trial is progressing at a snail pace and the chances of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak due to heavy dockets. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 18 SCC 166, Mohd. Muslim Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). He has further submitted that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Pundir, Vikrant Bhati Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prince Sharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021, SC 712, has held in para 16 of the judgment as under:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that looking to long incarceration of the applicant in jail and the applicant being a under trial prisoner for last more than five years, the applicant seeks indulgence of this Court for his release on bail. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial by all means. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he may be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 20.05.2020 and despite lapse of more than five years, the trial has not yet concluded and only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and rest ten witnesses are yet to be examined. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is in jail since 20.05.2020 and has already undergone more than five BAIL No. 25090 of 2025 2 years of incarceration in jail as an under trial prisoner and keeping in view that fact that out of twelve prosecution witnesses, till date only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and rest ten witnesses are yet to be examined and therefore there is no chance of trial being concluded in near future. Further, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 9. Let the applicant Prince Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- (i). The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release. (ii). He will not tamper with the witnesses. (iii). He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. 10. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12. The bail application is accordingly allowed. 13. Office is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order by e-mail to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent concerned. September 19, 2025 Subham BAIL No. 25090 of 2025 3 (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad