HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29889 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sati Shanker Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No.478 of 2016 (State vs. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra and Others), Case Crime No.44 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307, 506, 504 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Koraon, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the fourth bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19417 of 2017 and the second one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38664 of 2020. The third bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3412 of 2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. In compliance of order dated 7.3.2024, the learned trial Court submitted status report of the case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : A.K. Mishra, Sati Shanker Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rameshwar Prasad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 4. This third bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in S.T.No. 478 of 2016 (State Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra and others) vide Case Crime No. 44/2016, under Sections 302, 307, 506, 504, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Koran, District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.The first and second bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19417 of 2017 and vide order dated 08.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38664 of 2020 respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that after rejection of second bail application, three witnesses were examined by prosecution and the cross examination of P.W.-6 is not conducted. The applicant is in jail since 10.03.2016 but the witnesses are not turning up. It is further submitted that while rejecting the second bail application, this Court has directed the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. It is also submitted that P.W.-1, informant is not the eye witness. As many as 17 witnesses of fact have been nominated in the charge sheet. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. There are material contradictions in the statement of injured witnesses about the manner of assault so attributed to the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2016. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submitted that in this incident one person is done to death and three persons sustained injuries. The applicant fired upon deceased Vinod Kumar with a fire arm weapon, when the injured witnesses was taking him for medical treatment the applicant fired upon injured Shashank Kumar Pandey, who sustain fire arm injury on the back of his head. A country made pistol has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that by the order dated 08.05.2023 of this Court, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months is not filed before the trial Court. 8. Specific role has been assigned to the applicant that he fired with a arm weapon upon deceased Vinod Kumar as a result of which he died. When other injured persons Shashank Kumar Pandey and Shailesh tried to provide medical treatment and when they were taking the deceased on their motorcycle, the applicant fired upon Shashank Kumar Pandey which hit him on the back of his head. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled BAIL No. 29889 of 2025 2 for the bail, therefore, the bail application is rejected. 10. Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding on the merit and shall not prejudice the trial. 11. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same expeditiously preferably within six months without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties subject to full co-operation by the applicant, if there is no legal impediment. 12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court." 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he does not argue the matter on merits. The main ground of the applicant is the period of incarceration as he is languishing in jail since 10.03.2016, as such, he is incarcerated for about nine years and six months. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that as per order-sheet, the statement of PW-7 was completed on 22.07.2025 and the case is fixed for remaining prosecution evidence. It is true that in the instant case, one person was put to death and another was injured, but there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that paragraph-11 of the rejection of third bail application indicates that the trial was to be concluded within six months, but even after expiry of that period, one more year has passed and the trial is moving at a snail's pace. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the offence is of highest degree as one person has been put to death and another has sustained gun shot injury. 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 BAIL No. 29889 of 2025 3 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. 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 reported in (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) BAIL No. 29889 of 2025 4 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 "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 the period of incarceration of the applicant 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- Rameshwar Prasad, 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. BAIL No. 29889 of 2025 5 (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment at the time of presence of any witness in the court and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed. 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 9, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 29889 of 2025 6 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad