Abid Ahmad Alias Shakil vs State Of U.P.

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2019.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Session Case No. 1501 of 2022 (State Vs. Abid Ahmad @ Shakil), arising out of Case Crime No. 383 of 2017, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is in jail since 01.09.2017. 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 incarceration 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. Charge sheet has been filed against the applicant on 13.12.2017. Charges were framed against the applicant on 27.01.2023. Till date, only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. Prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant. 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 eight months. As per the status report of the trial judge, the prosecution proposes to examine ten witnesses to bring home the charges. Charge sheet has been filed on 13.12.2017 and charges were framed against the applicant on 27.01.2023. The prosecution proposes to examine ten witnesses to bring home charges. As per the status report, till date only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. 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.

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 Abid Ahmad @ Shakil 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;

(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.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

Lbm/-