This Court noticing the role of the applicant did not grant him bail on 19.09.2023, however, a mechanism was provided by this Court holding S.S.P./S.P., Lakhimpur Kheri responsible for production of prosecution witnesses before the trial court with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months from 19.09.2023 with a further stipulation that if the trial is not concluded within such period the applicant may renew his prayer of bail before this Court afresh. In the meantime, co-accused Lalluram Yadav whose role, admittedly is identical to the role of instant applicant- Atul Kumar Yadav, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 03.12.2024 only on the ground of occurrence of delay in disposal of the case by the trial court. The co-ordinate bench while releasing the identically placed co-accused Lalluram Yadav on bail, appears to have been considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra). Thus, the facility of bail was extended in favour of co-accused Lalluram Yadav on account of the delay which has occurred in disposal of this case. I do not find any reason as to why the same facility may not be extended in favour of the instant applicant, moreso when a time-bound mechanism was provided by this Court not only to the trial court but also to the S.S.P./S.P., Lakhimpur Kheri for production of prosecution witnesses before the trial court with a consequential direction to conclude the trial within eight months from production of a certified copy of the order dated 19.09.2023 and trial has not concluded yet.
