Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51931 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6227 of 2022 Applicant :- Abdullah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Firdos Ahmad,Mahesh Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Yadav,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2. By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Abdullah, who is involved in Case Crime No. 289 of 2017, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station-Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7315 of 2018. 4. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the informant who is brother of the deceased lodged a first information report on 19.08.2017 at 22:17 hours against two unknown persons alleging inter alia that on hearing sound of fire shot, he reached at the spot and saw that his brother was shot dead by two unknown miscreants, who ran away on a Passion Plus motorcycle. 5. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the F.I.R. indicates that at the time of incident informant was not present at the spot. Since he had not seen the incident, therefore, he had lodged the F.I.R. against unknown persons. It is also submitted that the informant was not an eye- witness and other eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, Mohd. Khalid, Suraj Yadav and Dhirendra Yadav are not willing to give any statement on behalf of the prosecution before the trial court, therefore, due to want of any corroborative material evidence, there is bleak chance of conviction of the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2017 having no criminal history to his credit but till date his trial has not been concluded, whereas only two adjournments have been taken from the side of the applicant on 04.02.2020 and 03.01.2022. The averment in this regard has been mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of supplementary affidavit dated 27.01.2025, therefore, considering the long detention period of the applicant and stage of trial, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that before the trial court statements of informant Mohd. Ibrahim who is brother of the deceased and Shamim Ahmad, who is father of the deceased have been recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. They, in their examination-in- chief, have stated inter alia that deceased was shot dead by Abdullah (applicant). It is also submitted that since the prosecution witnesses have been won over from the side of the accused, therefore, they are not ready to get their statements recorded before the trial court. Under the circumstances, informant moved applications dated 03.11.2022 and 23.01.2024 seeking prayer to discharge the prosecution witnesses, namely, Mohd. Khalid, Suraj Yadav and Dhirendra Yadav alias Bablu. It is further submitted that statement of Head Constable Rahul Kumar Singh has also been recorded as PW-3. Lastly it is submitted that considering the gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that brother and father of the deceased have supported the prosecution case before the trial Court attributing the role of shooting the deceased to the applicant. So far as delay in concluding the trial is concerned, I find that this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant vide order dated 27.04.2019, had directed the trial court to expedite the trial of the applicant within one year, but there is no reference of the order dated 27.04.2019 in order sheet of the trial court. It appears that direction given by this Court in the order dated 24.07.2019 was brought to the knowledge of the trial court from the side of the accused-applicant at the time of his moving second bail application in January, 2022. It is not in dispute that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2017 but his trial is running on a very slow pace and till date statement of only three prosecution witnesses have been recorded out of total sixteen prosecution witnesses of charge-sheet dated 26.10.2017. There is no likelyhood of conclusion of the trial in near future. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, has held as under :- "15. 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, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the detention period of the applicant as well as stage of trial, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 9. Let the applicant-Abdullah, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall attend the trial court on each and every date. The applicant shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. 10. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, it is open for the complainant to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail of the applicant. 11. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail only and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 12. However, considering the stage of trial, Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh is directed to ensure the production of all the remaining prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court so that trial of the applicant may be concluded at the earliest. 13. It is further directed that on appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statements on the same day and opportunity of cross-examination shall also be given in continuation of their examination-in-chief. 14. Copy of this order be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh as well as to the concerned trial court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad