Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50877 Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2134 of 2025 Applicant :- Virendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hiralal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. This is the second bail application. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2022 at Police Station-Mughalsaray, District-Chandauli under Sections 498A, 306 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 10.06.2022. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 16.07.2024. The following arguments made by Shri Hira Lal, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated in the investigation and has joined the trial proceedings. The applicant never tampered with the evidence nor did he influence any witness. 2. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the progress of the trial in any manner. 3. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial. 4. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 10 witnesses to bring home the charges. Two prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. 5. The first informant who is the father and also the brother of the deceased have respectively repudiated the prosecution case in their testimonies before the learned trial court. They have been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. 6. Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant, without any evidence. The right of the applicant to speedy trial has been violated. 7. The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The applicant has been falsely nominated in a number of cases only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. . 8. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Virendra Yadav 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. In case the applicant does not cooperate in the process of trial or adopts dilatory tactics or threatens witnesses or violates any bail condition, the learned trial court shall record its finding to that effect and cancel the bail of the applicant without recourse to this Court. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad