HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24610 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for accused applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused- Ajay Chandra Seth to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, P.S.- Chaubepur, District- Varanasi during the pendency of trial. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the FIR is of the year 2012 wherein the accused applicant has been granted bail by the court of Sessions in order dated 22.7.2014 and since then he is appearing in the trial. On 22.10.2024, the trial court has passed an order that the accused applicant is not appearing before the trial court on three successive dates and therefore, has not complied with the direction made in the bail application pertaining to his appearing before the trial court on each and every date. It is further contended that because of his non- availability at the trial court the accused was not at fault as his counsel is appearing before the court but despite that the bail of the accused applicant was cancelled and the non-bailable warrant was issued against him. On 29.5.2025, the accused applicant has surrendered himself before the trial court and since then, he is in jail. It is further contended that despite elapse of fourteen long years, the trial is still continuing and the accused applicant has been put to jail merely because he did not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vinod Kr Pandey, G.A. Ajay Chandra Seth .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) appear on three dates. The trial is still continuing. The applicant has one case criminal history, which could not be explained in the circumstances as the accused applicant was not knowing the same. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail application. 5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering that the accused applicant was already on bail by the Sessions Court and non-bailable warrant has been issued against the accused applicant on some filthy ground that the accused applicant is not appearing and he is not co-operating in the trial of the case despite the fact that the accused was appearing through counsel to facilitate trial, the accused applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re [(2024)10SCC 685]. 9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal. September 30, 2026 Krishna* BAIL No. 24610 of 2025 2 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad