Allowed

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/3962/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed second bail application of Rahul Yadav in a 498A/304B IPC/Dowry Death Act case. Release granted due to prolonged detention since 2018, slow trial progress (1 of 17 witnesses examined), and no criminal antecedents, upholding Article 21 right to speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31311

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3962 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Yadav,Animesh Upadhyay,Atul Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.332 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow.

¶8

3 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4534 of 2019. While doing so, directions were issued for making all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶9

4 . It is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in custody since 12.07.2018 and out of the 17 witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far despite directions of this Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

6. Considering the pretrial detention of the applicant continuing since 12.07.2018 and the right of speedy trail of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is getting adversely effected coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 12.07.2018, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

7. Let the applicant Rahul Yadav be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 akverma

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarik Vs State of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Bablu Nishad @ Candy Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vishnu Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko.

Gulfam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Seth vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.