Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 158584 (ALL)

PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

BAILC/90/2025 · 2025-08-22

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49599 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 90 of 2025 Applicant :- Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey,Ravi Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of the instant application, the applicant is challenging the validity of the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the Session Judge, Ayodhya enlargement of opposite party no. 2 on bail in Case Crime No. 448 of 2022, under Sections 420, 419, 406 of IPC registered at P.S. Kotwali Bikapur District Ayodhya. 3. A perusal of the order dated 05.05.2025 indicates that the Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and that the applicant has no criminal history, he was granted interim bail and he has not misused the liberty of interim bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence in the case. 5. At the stage of considering an application for release of an accused person on bail, the Court is not expected to hold a mini trial and examine the evidence in the case. That would be done during the trial and non consideration of evidence does not vitiate the bail order. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is threatening the complainant. However, there is no material to substantiate this allegation and prima facie, it appears that this bald allegation has been levelled merely in order to create a ground for seeking cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this court finds no merit in the application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2. 8. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application is rejected. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench