HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25925 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Navnath Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No.601 of 2015 (State vs. Rakesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2015, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Kandhrapur, District- Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the third bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2009 and the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24674 of 2020. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The trial is moving at a snail's pace. The cross-examination of Ajeet Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, is going on who has been examined as PW-9. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.8.2015, as such, he is incarcerated for 10 years and 01 month. The fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Navnath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rakesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the only ground on which earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected was that there was a statement of victim recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, which tantamount to dying-declaration. Learned counsel has stated that it is self-contradictory as the victim was admitted in Singh Medical & Research Center, Varanasi and she was taken from Azamgarh to Varanasi and was admitted on 29.7.2015 at 01:30 p.m. the same day and the Investigating Officer is stated to have recorded the statement of victim at Sadar Hospital, which is not possible. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant 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. 8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 3.9.2025, nine prosecution witnesses have been examined and the cross-examination of Ajeet Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer, is going on. The case is fixed for remaining prosecution evidence. 9. Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed: 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses. BAIL No. 25925 of 2025 2 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. 9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: "What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial." 10. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 311; A Convict Prisoner v. State 1993 Cri LJ 3242; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695. 11. In the money laundering case of V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739, the accused was incarcerated for more than 15 months as such the Supreme Court declared BAIL No. 25925 of 2025 3 "inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together". 12. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. 13. The Supreme Court in its latest judgement passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.10455-10456/2025 Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reiterated that issues of personal liberty must be addressed with utmost speed by Courts. The accused had already been incarcerated for more than three and a half years, in the instant and connected matters. Releasing accused on bail due to excessive delays by the High Court in deciding his application also took into account lengthy pre-trial confinement, emphasizing speedy decision-making for matters of personal liberty. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that applicant is incarcerated in jail for a considerable period of time i.e. more than 10 years and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Rakesh Yadav, 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. BAIL No. 25925 of 2025 4 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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. September 8, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 25925 of 2025 5 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad