Gaurav Kumar vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard Sri D.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashi Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0085 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chandinagar, District Baghpat, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2023 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 8034 of 2023, after considering the fact that applicant is husband of the deceased and his wife died within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there was also allegation of demand of dowry but in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 27.04.2022, i.e., for the last more than four years and till date, out of twelve witnesses, only three could be examined and therefore there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

4. He further submitted that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases like murder, an accused can be released on bail and considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that right to speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

5. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that he is the husband of the deceased and his wife died due to asphyxia and the fact that her hyoid bone was also found fractured but they could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.04.2022, i.e., for the last more than four years and till date, out of twelve witnesses, only three could be examined.

7. They also could not dispute the fact that there is neither any allegation nor evidence that applicant is causing delay in the trial.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court after considering the fact that he is husband of the deceased and his wife died under abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage and there is also an allegation of torture due to demand of dowry but it reflects that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.04.2022, i.e., for the last more than four years and till date out of twelve witnesses only three could be examined and therefore there is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial. Further, there is neither any allegation nor evidence that applicant is causing delay in the trial.

10. The law is settled that the right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail.

11. The Apex Court very recently in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare vs. The State of Maharashtra, SLP (Criminal) No. 7502 of 2026, decided on 04.05.2026, while dealing with bail matter of an accused relating to offence under Section 302 IPC, observed in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 as under:

"6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.

7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined."

12. From the above order dated 04.05.2026, passed by Apex Court, it reflects after noticing the fact that it appears that the right of speedy trial of the petitioner has been infringed, the Apex Court was pleased to enlarge him on bail after considering his incarceration of about four years, even in case under Section 302 IPC.

13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the observations made by Apex Court in the above-mentioned case, in view of this Court, applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that it appears his fundamental right of speedy trial has been infringed in the instant matter.

14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant-Gaurav Kumar, 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

17. 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Ankita