HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9236 of 2026 Court No. - 66 (Sr. No.7 out of 116) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24991 of 2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.681 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The informant was adamant about extracting ransom from the applicant and his family members on the date of the incident. The witnesses have not supported the prosecution story during their cross-examination. The order of the Supreme Court was filed in court by counsel for the applicant on 27.05.2025, and there is no direction for early disposal of the trial. The applicant is in jail since 13.11.2024, as such, the period of incarceration is about one year and four months. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pratibha Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Saurabh Kumar Chhote Lal Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that, except for a few contradictory statements of the witnesses, there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant has made out a case for bail, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. March 19, 2026 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 9236 of 2026 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad