The court emphasized the need to balance the individual's right to personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and considered the delay in trial, lack of prima facie evidence, and absence of produced witnesses as grounds for granting bail to the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Arvind Varma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, Ms. Meha Rashmi, Sri Harish Pandey and Sri Smrithi Sharma, learned counsel appearing for applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation-opposite party.

2. This is third bail application of applicant Rajiv Pratap Singh (Raju Singh) with regard to case crime no.RC 1 (S) 2013/CBI/SC-1 under Sections 120-B read with Section 302 I.P.C. and Sections 25 (1) (b) (a), 26 and 27 Arms Act, P.S. CBI/SC-1/ New Delhi, District Pratapgarh.

3. The first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits vide order dated 23.07.2015. The second bail application was thereafter rejected vide order dated 09.08.2016 directing the trial court to finally dispose of the Sessions Trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments and to conduct the trial in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., on a day to day basis.

4. In pursuance to directions issued by this Court earlier, the CBI Court, Lucknow has furnished a status report dated 04.12.2020 with regard to sessions trial in the present case. In the said report, it has been indicated that there are a total of 80 prosecution witnesses out of which 16 witnesses have already deposed since start of the trial from 2013. It has been stated that trial could not proceed since March, 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic. It has subsequently recommenced in October, 2020 but the prosecution witnesses have not appeared on three dates due to the pandemic.

5. The allegations in brief as mentioned in the first information report no.18 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 are that when complainant Phool Chander Yadav along with his brother Nanhe Yadav, his wife and two daughers and brother-in-law of Nanhe Yadav, who were on their way to home, stopped their Bolero vehicle no.UP 70-W-1805 near the tea shop of Chokhe Lal at Balipur Chauraha for taking tea, Kamta Prasad Pal, his son Ajay Kumar Pal, Ajit Kumar Singh and Rajiv Kumar Singh, both sons of Hari Singh, all hailing from Village Balipur, duly armed with weapons, arrived at the scene of the incident in their Bolero vehicle no.UP-64-7555 and fired many rounds targetting Nanhe Yadav with the intenion to kill him. Due to firing, Nahhe Yadav fell on the ground. This incident was also seen by Kallu son of Mata, resident of Sheikhpur Ashik, Police Station Kunda Kotwali besides many others. Thereafter Nanhe Yadav was brought to Kunada Hospital where the doctor declared him brought dead.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that although the first bail application was rejected on merits but while rejecting the second bail application, this Court has specifically directed the CBI court to conclude the trial expeditiously. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.03.2013 and although the trial is continuing since 2013, as yet only 16 witnesses have been examined in the past more than seven years with 64 witnesses remaining. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of trial concluding expeditiously as had been directed earlier. It is further submitted that at the time of rejection of the second bail application in 2016, only one prosecution witness had been examined and examination of the second prosecution witness was going on, which weighed heavily upon this Court for rejection of the second bail application. It is further submitted that during the time elapsed between the rejection of the second bail application and as on date, it is material factor that a new ground has cropped up which requires to be considered in this bail application.

7. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that as per the charge sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI), the only role assigned to applicant is of providing information with regard to whereabouts of the deceased, in pursuance of which the attack upon him was carried out. It is submitted that the aforesaid c