Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27404 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1539 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Navin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that notice has been served upon the informant on 16.01.2025. Despite service of notice none present on behalf of the informant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State. 4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 656 of 2015 (S.T. No. 129 of 2022), under Sections 302, 201, 364, 376ka IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad during pendency of the trial. 5. FIR of the present case was lodged on 27.12.2015 against unknown persons under Section 363 IPC with regard to missing of the daughter of the informant aged about five years. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 363 IPC but during investigation when dead body of the daughter of the informant was recovered and it was found that she was firstly raped and thereafter she was murdered then case was converted under Sections 302, 201, 364, 376A IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. 7. He further submits, during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that near the place of incident his Nekar was recovered and during investigation mother of the deceased stated that she witnessed the applicant along with deceased but neither the recovered Nekar belonged to the applicant nor applicant ever accompanied the deceased. 8. He further submits, even merely on the basis of above two evidences, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant is the person who firstly committed rape upon the girl and thereafter committed her murder. 9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 31.12.2015 i.e. for last more than nine years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded. He further submits, till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case in which five years old girl was firstly raped and thereafter she was brutally murdered but could not dispute the fact that it is case of circumstantial evidence and except the evidence of last seen and the fact that alleged Nekar of the applicant was recovered from the place of incident there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. 11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact in the present matter applicant is in jail since 31.12.2015 i.e. for last more than nine years and till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, it is a case in which five years old girl was firstly raped and thereafter she was brutally murdered but it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence and however as per prosecution applicant was last seen along with deceased and his Nekar was also recovered from the place of incident but it reflects, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 31.12.2015 i.e. for last more than nine years and till date the trial of the case could not be concluded. It also appears, till date not even single prosecution witness could be examined, therefore, it appears, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 14. Further, considering the fact that applicant is in jail since 31.12.2015 i.e. for last more than nine years it cannot be said that his fundamental right of speedy trial has not been infringed. Further, law is settled that even if the allegations are serious then also on the ground of long incarceration an accused can be released on bail. (See: Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.15971 of 2024 decided on 14.02.2025). 15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant - Mohit be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 20. 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 :- 27.2.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad