The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and granted bail due to inconsistencies in witness statements and prolonged detention without trial.

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth, J.

1. Heard Shri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Saurabh Basu, learned Counsel for the applicant; Sri Shashi Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Arun Kumar Pathak, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0092 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 120-B, 34, 392 and 412 of IPC, Police Station-Lalapur, District-Allahabad, during pendency of trial.

3. This is the third bail application of the applicant. His earlier bail applications were rejected by this court on 21.02.2023 and 12.12.2023. While rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within period of one year and also while rejecting the second bail application of the applicant trial court was similarly directed to conclude the trial within further period of 1 year.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of filing of the bail application six prosecution witnesses were examined and statement of P.W.-7 was being recorded. From the perusal of the statement of P.W. I, Mukesh Kumar Tripathi, several anomalies have come to the light. His statement differs from the version given at the time of registration of F.I.R. as well as from his own statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

5. The statement of P.W. 2, Sudama Pal, has also been recorded during the ongoing trial. He has denied the recovery of cartridges from the deceased, Amit Kumar Tiwari @ Kallu. He has further made another different statement about the injuries sustained by the accused in the fight, which was never stated earlier. P.W.-2 has alleged that applicant, Arun Kumar Pathak, fired by Rifle and not by Revolver, and he knows about the difference between Rifle and Revolver. Prakash Pathak had also fired upon the deceased which has also created a serious doubt upon the whole F.I.R. version as other than the applicant nobody else was given any role of firing upon the deceased. It has been specifically mentioned by the P.W. 2 that Prakash Pathak had fired upon the deceased which hit him in the stomach.

6. Further the statement of P.W. 3, Jagjivan Prasad, has also been recorded and he has given a different version from the statements of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2, which makes the whole case doubtful. From the perusal of the statement of P.W. 3, no link can be established between the incident that took place at 09.30 AM at the field of Prakash Pathak and the before the house of Arun Pathak. P.W.-3 has stated that he is not sure about who fired by 0.12 bore Rifle. Whether it was Prakash Pathak or Prashant Pathak.

7. The statement of P.W. 4, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, has commenced which clearly shows that the P.W. 4 was not the eye witness of the incident and he was later on produced as an eye witness.

8. The statements of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have also recorded, where the date and time of incident as per the said statements do not match.

9. From the perusal of the statements recorded till date there have been deviations in the versions of incident given by P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 where from it can very easily be inferred that nobody has given the correct version of incident, which creates a serious doubt about the occurrence of the said incident and therefore, it can be concluded that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 22.08.2021. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.

10. Learned counsel for informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant side has tried to delay the conclusion of trial by resorting to number of delaying tactics. They filed a transfer application for transfer of the trial before Sessions Judge on 19.10.2022 which was