Allowed

Savita Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed second bail application. Court noted delay in framing charges and indefinite trial duration despite applicant's detention since September 2022, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Releasement on personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to non-tampering with evidence and non-pressurizing witnesses.

Savita Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28952

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 554 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Savita Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Gangeshwar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Smt. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶7

This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2020, under Sections 506, 386, 388, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar Extension, District Lucknow. The first bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2115 of 2023 has been rejected by this court by means of an order dated 22.03.2023.

¶8

While advancing her submissions in support of the second application for bail the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court to the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit that even charges have not been framed till date although the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.09.2022. The prosecution proposes to examine as many as 22 witnesses and the trial will take an indefinitely long period before its conclusion.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it has been submitted that the applicant is an innocent woman and she

¶10

has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicants involvement in three other cases has been explained in para 30 of the affidavit.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant-Savita Pathak be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court unless her appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 Ram.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Savita Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Jais Raji and Anr. Vs Ivth Additional District and Session Judge Gonda and Anr.

Sudhir Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Rama Shankar Alias Rama Shanker Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and 5 Others

Rajeev Kumar Shukla and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Praveen Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raghunath Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others