Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35982 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29854 of 2024 Applicant :- Teepu @ Anand Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 533 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 325 IPC, Police Station- Cantt, District- Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is the fourth bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his earlier three bail applications have been dismissed by different co- ordinate Benches of this Court and as all the Hon'ble Judges, who decided the earlier bail applications of the applicant, have already demitted their offices, therefore, the instant fourth bail application is listed before this Bench as this Bench is dealing with such matters. 4. He further submitted that, however, it is a case, in which, one person sustained injuries and one person died and as per allegation, applicant committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating him but in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.12.2016 i.e. for last more than 8 years and till date, out of 21 witnesses of the charge sheet only 7 witnesses could be examined and, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 5. He further submitted that as per prosecution, one witness Rajesh Kumar also sustained injuries in the incident and however, during investigation, he supported the prosecution case but during his cross-examination before the trial court on the request of prosecution, he has been declared hostile. 6. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submitted that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than 8 years, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed. 7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history. 8. Par contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is the fourth bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. This is the fourth bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his earlier three bail applications have been dismissed by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court but as all the Hon'ble Judges, who decided the earlier bail applications of the applicant, have already demitted their offices, therefore, the instant fourth bail application is listed before this Bench as this Bench is dealing with such matters. 11. Record further suggests that applicant pressed the instant bail application on the ground that he is in jail in the present matter since 20.12.2016 i.e. for last more than 8 years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded. Considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects that till date out of 21 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 7 witnesses could be examined, therefore it appears that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 12. Further, right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail and considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than 8 years and there is no evidence, which can suggests that due to delaying tactics of the applicant, trial is being lingered on, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been infringed. 13. 13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Teepu @ Anand Rajbhar 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 11.3.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad