Allahabad High Court

ASHOK KUMAR AHIRWARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the accused's right to a speedy trial was violated and therefore bail was warranted.

Summary

Ashok Kumar Ahirwar, charged with rape and related offences under Sections 376(1), 328, 323, 342, 506 IPC and Section 67 IT Act, had been in judicial custody for over three and a half years while only three of six prosecution witnesses had been examined. The applicant sought bail, arguing that his fundamental right to a speedy trial was violated and that there was no risk of evidence tampering, especially since the victim had already testified. The State opposed bail, noting this was a second bail application but did not dispute the factual contentions. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Crl.) No.7502 of 2026), held that infringement of the speedy trial right warrants bail even in serious offences. Finding no evidence of the accused causing delay and no likelihood of tampering, the Court granted bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

The accused's right to a speedy trial has been infringed, justifying bail despite serious charges.
Whether there is a risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation if bail is granted.
Whether the fact that this is a second bail application precludes granting bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 328, 342, 376(1), 506
Information Technology Act — s. 67

Subjects

bail
right to speedy trial
sexual assault
IPC
evidence tampering
witness protection
second bail application
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

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.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. This is the second bail application.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. He further argued, applicant is not having.
BAIL No. 8132 of 2026
2

9. 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.

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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:

"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.

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

15. 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.
BAIL No. 8132 of 2026
3

16. Further, applicant is not having any other criminal history.

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

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

19. 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:-

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

(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.

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

20. 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.

21. 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 6, 2026
Kumar Manish

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…