Allowed

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022BAIL/53752/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application involving offences under IPC sections 467, 468, 471 and the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, the court allowed the bail petition subject to strict personal bonds, local sureties, and conditions regarding court attendance and undertakings against abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance, prohibition of adjournments, and penalties for misuse of liberty.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53752 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kalim,Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Vinay Kumar with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2022, under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 3/5(1) U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Prosecution version is that the first informant got the information by the people of the locality, that on 14.04.2022, gullible persons of Hindu Religion are being unlawfully converted to Christians by mis-representation, undue influence, allurement and by fraudulent means. On this information the first informant reached along with his companion in the Church namely Evegelical Church of India situated at Hariharganj, Fatehpur and thereafter informed the police and administration and on inquiry the pastor namely Vijay Masih was inquired and he admitted that the conversion is being done by manipulating the documents and is done for the last 34 days and would be completed within 40 days and further this conversion is being done to the patients of mission hospital, in which the employees of the hospital were also involved. To this effect a F.I.R. was lodged against 35 persons including the applicant along with 20 unknown persons.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as they were celebrating festival of Easter in the church of namely Evegelical Church of India situated at Hariharganj, Fatehpur, which last for 40 days but on 14.04.2022 the first informant along with companions entered into the church and called the

¶10

police thereafter the Aadhar Card of the persons in the church was collected to ensure their identity and after collecting their Aadhar Cards, the police lodged the F.I.R. against the persons including the applicant. It is further submitted that no victim is named in the F.I.R. who was being converted to Christian religion and it is stated that co-accused Vijay Masih has accepted the allegation of conversion which is false and concocted. It is also submitted that co-accused Nasir Mansoor and Shaba Zahid have already been enlarged on bail by the Court below vide order dated 08.11.2022. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 13.10.2022.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release of the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶17

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.11.2022 SK Srivastava

¶20

Digitally signed by SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.28 17:34:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay 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

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P.

Aman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Rathi Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.

Muzaffar Vs State of U.P.

Surjeet Vs State of U.P.