BAIL/4344/2026 of TRIVENI PRASAD Vs STATE OF U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4344 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shri Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This is the second bail application which has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Triveni Prasad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.122 of 2023, under Section 302 of I.PC., Police Station- Raipura, District-Chitrakoot, during pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application. The first bail application has been rejected vide order dated 13.05.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16586 of 2024 (Triveni Prasad vs. State of U.P.). He further contends that after rejection of the first bail, five witnesses have been examined, who have turned hostile. Emphasizing upon the period of detention i.e from 08.10.2025, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He also contends that there is no prospect of trial being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. There is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submits that statement of eyewitness; Mahajan Bhujwa, who was sitting along with the other eyewitnesses, where the deceased was also sitting has not been recorded Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shri Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Triveni Prasad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) till date. He further contends that the aforesaid person is the main witness. Hence, the offence being serious in nature, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 5. Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant. Thus, the present bail application stands rejected. 6. However, it is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the prosecution witnesses are not turning up deliberately, then the court below has all the powers to adopt all the coercive measures provided under the Code in order to procure the presence of the witnesses. 7. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance. May 5, 2026 K.N. BAIL No. 4344 of 2026 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad