The High Court allowed the criminal bail application of Vinay Shrotiya in a case involving robbery under Section 392 IPC and cheating under Section 411 IPC, citing false implication and jail overcrowding.
Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; conditions imposed to prevent tampering and influencing witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24491 of 2021
Applicant :- Vinay Shrotiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State.
A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 0510 of 2018 at Police Station-Tundla District-Firozabad on 18.09.2018 under Section 392 IPC.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (D.A.A) Court No.3, Firozabad on 14.05.2019.
The applicant is in jail since 02.12.2018, pursuant to the said F.I.R.
As per the prosecution case recovery of sum of Rs.870 has been made from the person of the applicant.
Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is in jail since 02.12.2018. The amount recovered is not relatable to the offence which has occasioned the FIR. The applicant is a soft target for the police authorities and has been made an accused in many unnamed cases only to burnish the credentials of police investigators. The applicant has explained criminal history. Lastly it is submitted by Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation ( Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These
circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
I see merit in the submissions of Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Vinay Shrotiya be released on bail in Case Crime No. 510 of 2018 at Police Station-Tundla District-Firozabad under Section 392, 411 IPC, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence
is exempted.
(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 26.11.2021 Nadeem
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail given false implication and jail overcrowding.
Whether the recovered sum of Rs.870 is relatable to the offence occasioned by the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of IndiaRelied on¶12
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinay Shrotiya
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
