HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13843 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2017, under Sections 396 and 412 IPC, Police Station Sakeet, District Etah during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. On the basis of information furnished by the informant, the applicant was arrested on 06.11.2017 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovered article cannot be connected with the offence. No identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. 4. Counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is in jail since 06.11.2017. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and has always cooperated with the investigation, and has attended the trial. The applicant never influenced the witnesses nor tempered with the evidence. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses has led to pro-longed incarnation of the applicant. The trial is moving at snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in conclusion of trial. As per the charge sheet, the prosecution proposes to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Kishan, Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kailash Lodhi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) examine 42 witnesses to bring home the charges. Charge sheet has been filed against the applicant on 25.01.2018. Charges were framed against the applicant on 29.04.2018. As per the order sheet, till date only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. Prosecution witnesses and other co-accused are deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant is in jail for more than eight years and five months. As per the charge sheet, the prosecution proposes to examine 42 witnesses to bring home the charges. Charge sheet has been filed and charges were framed against the applicant. As per the order-sheet, till date only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses and other co- accused have led to pro-longed incarnation 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. 7. Consequently, keeping in view the above stated facts and more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8. Let the applicant Kailash Lodhi involved in the aforesaid 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 the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; BAIL No. 13843 of 2026 2 (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. May 5, 2026 Lbm/- BAIL No. 13843 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad