Allowed

Vikas @ Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2022BAIL/39876/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Vikas @ Vipin Kumar charged under Section 307 IPC. The applicant argued lack of criminal history and non-flight risk. The court found merit in these submissions and allowed bail on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to standard conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Vikas @ Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39876 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas @ Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Mishra,Ankit Mishra,Sunil Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Personal affidavits filed on behalf of Shri Ashish Tiwari, Superintendent of Police, DistrictFirozabad and Shri Ashish Kumar, Circle Officer, Police Station-Shikohabad, District-Shikohabad by the learned A.G.A. are taken in the record.

¶6

Shri Ashish Tiwari, Superintendent of Police, District-Firozabad is present. He has informed the Court of remedial measures taken by the police authorities in the instant case, and also to ensure that such occurrences will not happen in future and the training and competence level of the investigating officers are constantly upgraded.

¶7

Supplementary charge-sheet has been filed along with the injury report and the statement of the doctor after further investigation in accordance with law.

¶8

The Investigating Officer of this case has been changed. The current Investigating Officer-Shri Ashish Kumar, Circle Officer, Police Station-

¶9

Shikohabad, District-Shikohabad is also present before the Court. He submits that due to typographical error the doctor who had given medical opinion was not shown as a witness in the supplementary chargesheet. The prosecution proposes to introduce him as a witness in the criminal case. In this regard, appropriate action has been initiated as per law.

¶10

Personal appearance of Shri Ashish Tiwari, Superintendent of Police, District-Firozabad and Shri Ashish Kumar, Circle Officer, Police StationShikohabad, District-Shikohabad as well as Investigating Officer-Shri Ashish Kumar, Circle Officer, Police Station-Shikohabad, DistrictShikohabad are exempted.

¶11

By means of the second bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.456 of 2021 at Police StationShikohabad, District-Firozabad under Section 307 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 25.08.2021.

¶12

The first bail application has been rejected by this Court on 19.05.2022.

¶13

The medical report as well as statement of the doctor have been filed as part of the supplementary charge-sheet. Shri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned

¶14

counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated. Attention is called by the learned counsel for the applicant to the medical report as well as statement of the doctor recorded by the investigation officer. It is contended that the doctor in the aforesaid statement has opined that the bullet gun shot injury is self inflicted.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant resides in Firozabad with his family and runs a business in the same district. He is not a flight risk. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who has cooperated with the police investigation and shall join the trial proceeding. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶16

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I for the State and Shri Akash Mishra, learned counsel and Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. They do not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶17

I see merit in the submissions of the learned

¶18

counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Vikas @ Vipin Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶23

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(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.

¶25

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above

¶26

condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶27

Order Date :- 21.12.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶28

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

Vikas @ Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas @ Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Madan Vs State of U.P.

Chand @ Salman Vs State of U.P.

Raju Alias Rajeev Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faizan Alias Mohammad Shah Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others