Raju Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Raju Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Accused-applicant Raju Kumar Yadav to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 500 of 2024 on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (1) no tampering with evidence, (2) no criminal activity, (3) no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses and cooperation in trial, (4) regular appearance on each date fixed by the trial court unless appearance exempted through counsel; in case of breach the court below may proceed to cancel bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Raju Kumar Yadav, in custody in Case Crime No. 500 of 2024 under Sections 178, 179, 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is entitled to bail where the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace because the trial court is securing the presence of co-accused Rinku Devi only through repeated summons despite her having been granted bail, the delay being one that cannot be attributed to the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Since the trial of the applicant is being delayed unnecessarily and the delay cannot be attributed to the applicant, who has been appearing on all dates from jail, it is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant.

Key takeaways

Despite having knowledge of the order dated 28.05.2025 of this Court, the trial court in a routine manner and without due application of mind passed orders for ensuring the presence of co-accused Rinku Devi by issuing only summons against her, keeping the trial stalled; the Court expressed this view while expressly refraining from commenting on the officer's conduct.ratio¶¶11
The bail application is allowed; the accused-applicant Raju Kumar Yadav is to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions that he will not tamper with evidence, will not indulge in criminal activity, will not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses and will cooperate and appear regularly on each date fixed by the trial court; on breach of any condition the court below may cancel his bail.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL — S. 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — second bail application by accused in Case Crime No. 500 of 2024, under Sections 178, 179, 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur — first bail application rejected; trial proceeding at a snail's pace — co-accused Rinku Devi @ Neeku already enlarged on bail by this Court on 21.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38443 of 2024, yet her presence before the trial court was being sought only through summons fixed date after date, prompting this Court's order dated 28.05.2025 directing the trial court to explain and submit a report — report not submitted despite communication of that order (office reports dated 04.06.2025 and 11.07.2025); supplementary affidavit dated 03.07.2025 with order-sheet showed that, despite knowledge of the order dated 28.05.2025, orders continued to be passed in a routine manner and without due application of mind, issuing only summons against the co-accused — delay therefore not attributable to the applicant, who appeared on all dates from jail — HELD, fit case to grant bail; application allowed — applicant directed to be released on personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions (non-tampering with evidence, no criminal activity, no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses, cooperation in trial and regular appearance), breach entitling the court below to cancel bail. (A. Srivastava, J.)