Allahabad High Court

RAVI YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 21 January 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

Prolonged pre‑trial detention without progress violates the accused’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21, therefore bail must be granted.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Ravi Yadav under Section 483 of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, seeking release pending trial in a case involving alleged arsenic poisoning. The applicant argued that the trial had been unduly delayed, that the charge sheet did not implicate him as the principal offender, and that the delay was politically motivated by a rival informant. The State contended that no fresh grounds existed for bail. Citing the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Hussainara Khatoon, Kadra Pahadiya and Abdul Rehman Antulay, the Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and held that prolonged pre‑trial detention amounts to punishment. Observing that charges had not been framed and no witnesses had been examined, the Court concluded that further detention was unnecessary and granted bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences due to delay in trial
Whether the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates bail when the trial is unduly delayed
Whether the prosecution’s failure to frame charges and commit the case for trial justifies the grant of bail
Whether political rivalry influencing the prosecution can be a factor in bail considerations

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 103(1), 111(2)(a), 123, 333, 352, 483, 61(2)
Constitution of India — s. Article 21

Subjects

bail
right to speedy trial
Article 21
pre‑trial detention
political influence
criminal procedure
Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44377 of 2025

Ravi Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Singh, Syed Imran
Ibrahim
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anuj Kumar Gupta, G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri M.
C. Chaturvedi, learned AAG and Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sanjay
Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State as also Shri Aunj Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

The instant 2nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of
applicant Ravi Yadav has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case
Crime No. 72 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2), 123, 333, 352, 111
(2) (a) of BNS, Police Station Junawari, District Sambhal, during the
pendency of the trial before the Court below. The Ist bail application of
the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.9.2025 and
the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.3.2025.

Shri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant while pressing
the 2nd bail plea on behalf of the applicant vehemently submits that the
trial of the applicant is being unnecessarily delayed and the delay is not
attributable to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the FIR giving rise to the case crime number in question does not
raise any allegations against the applicant. The co-accused Dharamveer
alias Dhama has been assigned the role of injecting the deceased with
arsenic poison and the name of the applicant and co-accused Dr. Mukesh
Yadav, Mahesh Yadav has surfaced as conspirators. The applicant has
been roped in this very case on account of political rivalry inasmuch as
the applicant and the informant had contested the elections of Block
BAIL No. 44377 of 2025
2

Pramukh and the applicant had won while the informant had lost.
However, on the incarceration of the applicant in jail, the informant has
become the Block Pramukh. The trial is being delayed deliberately at the
instance/influence of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant
contends that charge sheet against the applicant was filed on 20.6.2025
and cognizance was taken on 21.6.2025, however, till date the charges
have not been framed and the case has not been committed for trial and
the case is unnecessary being adjourned on one pretest or the other. The
order sheet of the trial proceedings have been brought on record by way
of supplementary affidavit dated 14.12.2025. Learned counsel for the
applicant next contends that the applicant is not at a flight rise and shall
extend all cooperation in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail,
if released. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Per contra, Shri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned AAG/Senior Counsel
appearing for the State as also Shri Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel
for the first informant opposing the bail plea submits that no fresh
grounds exist for consideration of the 2nd bail plea and the applicant
deserves no indulgence and the bail application warrants outright
rejection.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful
consideration to the submissions advanced. From the perusal of the order
sheet of the trial proceedings the contentions of learned counsel for the
applicant is made out.

In the case of Hussainara Khatoon versus Home Secy. State of Bihar,
reported in 1980 (1) SCC 81, the Apex Court declared that the right to
speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad
sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Apex Court went
on to observe as under:-

"Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of
liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just" unless that procedure ensures
a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure
which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as
"reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean
BAIL No. 44377 of 2025
3

reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question
which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a
person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be
deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial
in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21."

The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in several
judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in
(1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in
(1992) 1 SCC 225. In the latter the court re-emphasized the right to
speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has
no option:

"The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the
obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may
be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.
Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of
accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the
society, not versed in the ways of law, where they do not
often get competent legal advice, the application of the said
rule is wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an
accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one,
may be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot
disentitle an accused from complaining of infringement of his
right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or
insist upon a speedy trial."

It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental
right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should
not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is
serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of
the crime.

The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is
BAIL No. 44377 of 2025
4

not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an
undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot
be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into
form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ
in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class
warranting a blanket denial of bail.

The charge sheet brought on record reveals that the prosecution proposes
to record the evidence of 32 witnesses to drive home the charges against
the applicant. None have been examined so far rather the case has yet not
been committed for trial. The applicant does not appear to be the principal
offender.

In such view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that further
detention of the applicant pending trial is not necessary. Accordingly, the
bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Ravi Yadav, involved in above mentioned case
crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
January 22, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…