HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37685 of 2024 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 2. This application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.38 of 2024, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Babhni, District- Sonbhadra, during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on hearsay evidence. During trial, the informant, who is the son of the deceased, was examined as P.W.-1 and the daughter of the deceased was examined as P.W.-5. Placing reliance upon the testimonies of both the prosecution witnesses it is contended that they are not the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the identity of the person who purportedly conveyed the information regarding the incident has never been disclosed. Further, P.W.-1 in his cross-examination has deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, the investigating officer met him but his statement was not recorded by him. Further, P.W.-5 in her cross- examination stated that the applicant and the deceased never used to fight. The relations between them were cordial. She further Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Singh, Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, Krishna Mani, Sushma Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hari Narayan Alias Munna .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) deposed that her neighbours by misleading the informant got the first information report lodged. It is next contended that false recovery of a lathi has been shown from an open place. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who cooperated with the police investigation and had joined the trial. The prosecution proposes to examine 14 witnesses to bring home the charges. Only six prosecution witnesses have been examined, so far. The applicant never influenced the witnesses and tampered with the evidence. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to conclude early. Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to virtually an indefinite imprisonment of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence and violates the rights of the applicant to a speedy trial. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.05.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the testimonies of P.W.-1 (son of the deceased) and P.W.-5 (daughter of the deceased), they are not the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the identity of the person who purportedly conveyed the information regarding the incident has never been disclosed. The prosecution case rests on hearsay evidence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two years and four months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses have led to pro-longed incarceration of the applicant. Even the prosecution could not bring on record any material, which would show that the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the present applicant. Thus, the 'right of speedy trial' of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Moreover, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, BAIL No. 37685 of 2024 2 would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Hari Narayan Alias Munna, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. September 29, 2026 Manish Kr BAIL No. 37685 of 2024 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad