Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024BAIL/554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of Savita Pathak. The court held that the delay in framing charges and the projected indefinite trial duration constituted sufficient grounds for bail, granting release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Savita Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram Vs Smt. Shiv Rani

Narendra Dev Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

The New India Assurance Company Limited Thru. Officer in Change vs Ahshan Khan and 2 Others

Juvenile ' X' Thru. His Father Babban Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Vidhya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another