Allowed

Vinesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022BAIL/40819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application for Vinesh Kumar accused of kidnapping and attempted kidnapping. The Single Judge allowed bail on parity with co-accused, observing the applicant was falsely implicated despite gravity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, threatening witnesses, and committing similar offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40819 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sahab Tiwari,Amit Daga,Himanshu Kumar,Himanshu Mishra,Satya Narayan Yadav,Saurabh Tiwari,Sita Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Narayan Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed bail orders of coaccused Gunjan Yadav, Rohit and Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Vihari passed by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 21.11.2022, 03.12.2022 and 12.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46562 of 2022, 40046 of 2022 and 40063 of 2022, respectively. These are taken on record.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Vinesh Kumar in Case Crime No. 472 of 2021, under Sections 364, 120B IPC, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the FIR lodged on 12.08.2021 is to the effect that on 31.07.2021 the informant’s son had gone missing. Later on during search the informant came to know that his son has been taken away somewhere forcibly in a car by the coaccused persons, named in the FIR.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The only evidence against the applicant is that he accompanied the other co-accused persons to the place where the son of the informant with the daughter of Deviram were present. It is submitted that the applicant’s name surfaced in the case only on

¶10

the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Shivraj @ Shivram Singh. It is averred that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is also submitted that co-accused Gunjan Yadav, Rohit and Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Vihari, similarly circumstanced as the applicant, have already been enlarged on bail by different coordinate Benches of this court vide orders dated 21.11.2022, 03.12.2022 and 12.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46562 of 2022, 40046 of 2022 and 40063 of 2022, respectively. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is in the last submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.03.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has vehementally opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that co-accused Gunjan Yadav, Rohit and Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Vihari have already been enlarged on bail, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶13

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Vinesh Kumar involved in the aforementioned case be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶19

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before the Court concerned.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Brijesh Maurya

¶22

Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.12.14 17:16:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinesh 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

Pramendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rambhan Singh @ Nanhe Vs State of U.P.

Digamber Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Hari Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jangbahadur Vs State of U.P.