Ashok Kumar Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8132 of 2026

Ashok Kumar Ahirwar

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Umakant Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

This is the second bail application.

¶8

Heard Sri Umakant Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in S.T. No. 1014 of 2022 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Ahirwar) arising out of Case Crime No.393 of 2022, under Sections 376(1), 328, 323, 342, 506 IPC and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.5.2023 after considering the fact that applicant sexually exploited the victim but applicant is in jail in the present matter since 11.09.2022 i.e. for last more than 3-1/2 years and till date trial could not be concluded.

¶11

He further submits that in the charge sheet there are total six witnesses but till date only three witnesses could be examined and, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial.

¶12

He further argued, right of speedy trial is fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in the serious cases he can be released on bail. He next argued there is no evidence that applicant is causing delay in trial and, therefore, it cannot be said that his right of speedy trial has not been violated.

¶13

He further argued, even victim has already been examined as P.W.1, therefore, even if applicant is enlarged on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

He further argued, applicant is not having.

¶15

BAIL No. 8132 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant but could not dispute the other argument on fact advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed on merit after considering the fact that as per allegation he sexually exploited the victim but in the present matter applicant is in jail for last more than 3-1/2 years and till date out of six witnesses only three could be examined, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no hope of early disposal of trial.

¶20

Further, even from the report of the Court concerned it reflects there is neither any allegation nor evidence that applicant is causing delay in trial and considering all these facts it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

¶21

The law is settled if fundamental right of speedy trial of the accused is infringed then even in serious cases including case of murder, he can be released on bail.

¶22

Recently, Apex Court in case of Sahil Manoj Machare vs. The State of Maharashtra, S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026 had occasion to consider the aspect of right of speedy trial of an accused in case of murder and on 5.4.2026 the Apex court was pleased to enlarge the accused of that case on bail after considering the fact that he was in jail for almost four years and it appears his right of speedy trial has been violated. The Apex Court while enlarging the accused on bail in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 observed as under:

¶23

"6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.

¶24

7. Here is a case wherein past almost four years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined."

¶25

Further, even from the report of the Court concerned it reflects victim of the case who appears to be major and married lady has already been examined by the trial court as P.W.1 and, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if applicant is enlarged on bail then also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

¶26

BAIL No. 8132 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

Further, applicant is not having any other criminal history.

¶29

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶31

Let the applicant - Ashok Kumar Ahirwar 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶33

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

¶34

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶35

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶36

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶37

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶38

May 6, 2026 Kumar Manish

¶39

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Ahirwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Ahirwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Singh Gurjar Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Angad Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sameena vs State of U.P.