MOHAN v. STATE OF U.P.THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME GOVT. LKO.
BAIL/8205/2025 · 2025-09-03
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160308 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160308 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8205 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
2. This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 504 I.P.C, registered at Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.
3. The first bail application No.9477 of 2023 was rejected by means of an order dated 03.04.2024 after taking into consideration the statements of four prosecution witnesses recorded till that time. The second bail application has been moved on the ground that now the prosecution evidence stands concluded, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C has been recorded and in case of release of the applicant, there would be no possibility of any witness being influenced or any evidence being tampered
4. The learned A.G.A as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and they have submitted that no major discrepancy has come to light in the prosecution evidence recorded by the trial court and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. Without taking any observation which may affects the merits of the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
trial, as the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2022 and the entire prosecution evidence stands closed, it would be appropriate that the trial is concluded expeditiously.
6. Accordingly, this second bail application has been disposed of by observing that the trial court shall make every endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. September 3, 2025 Preeti.
BAIL No. 8205 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench