Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123916 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25617 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhanraj Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dhanraj Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.599 of 2024 (State vs. Abhinesh Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.279 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 and 449 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.1.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1186 of 2025 and the following order was passed :- "1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.279 of 2023 (S.T. No.599 of 2024), under Sections 302, 201 read with Sections 34 and 449 I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. He has simply been made an accused on the basis of his own confessional statement before the police. It is a clear-cut case of circumstantial evidence without any direct or ocular evidence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is clinching evidence against the applicant as the deceased was beheaded and the head and the lower part of her both hands were recovered at his pointing out, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is recovery of head and lower part of both hands of the deceased at the pointing out of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. 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." 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, it is the period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in jail since 11.11.2023 and more than one and half years have passed since his incarceration. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only five witnesses have been examined to date. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main assailant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. 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 :- 28.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad