Allowed

Vinay Kumar @ Praveen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022BAIL/7209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed bail for the applicant, Vinay Kumar @ Praveen, in a non-bailable offence case alleging attempt to murder. The court noted family dispute origins, lack of injury on vital parts, and a subsequent compromise between parties, finding the applicant has made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to specific conduct conditions including no tampering, no inducement, and attendance for tri

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7209 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar @ Praveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Anil Kumar,Atharva Dixit,Aushim Luthra,Veerendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinay Kumar @ Praveen, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 333 of 2021, under Sections 307,504 IPC and section 3/25/27 Arms Police Station Pakbada, District- Moradabad, during pendency of trial. There is allegation of attempt to murder against the applicant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant and informant are belonging to same family and on account of family dispute applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.Even otherwise no injury was caused on vital part of the body of the injured. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that parties have subsequently entered into compromise.The applicant is in jail since 5.11.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant could not dispute the aforesaid fact

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P. (CRL.) No.

¶10

5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶20

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.20 14:51:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Kumar @ Praveen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar @ Praveen 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirdesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bhallar @ Rajendra Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Tomar Vs State of U.P.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P.

Ankur @ Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.