Allowed

Vinay v. State of U.P Through Principal Secretary U.P. Lucknow

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022BAIL/8106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Vinay in a case under Section 307 IPC. He was released on personal bond and two sureties as co-accused were already on bail. Officers were directed to provide bond to lower court.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties in like amount to satisfaction of the court below.

Vinay Vs State of U.P Through Principal Secretary U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

E-Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8106 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Opposite Party :- State of U.P Through Principal Secretary U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Gaur, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 585 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by a Sub Inspector of Police against four named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that the Police had received an information from a Mukhbir that the accused persons were involved in Case Crime No. 550 of 2021 under Sections 394, 411, 120B IPC and they were distributing the robbed money near Goods Godown Road near the Railway Line. When the Police Party apprehended the accused persons, they opened fire at them. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused Arbind and Constable Ranjeet Rathore received gun shot injuries in the incident.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the informant has falsely implicated the applicant whereas in fact nothing has been recovered from the applicant.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery and that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. and there are general allegations levelled against all the accused persons. He has further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2021 whereas all the other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. The coaccused Arun Kumar, Arvind @ Maya and Naresh have been released on bail by means of orders dated 08.04.2022, 11.08.2022 and 01.04.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal

¶10

Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12244 of 2022, 33873 of 2022 and 7011 of 2022.

¶11

The applicant has filed two supplementary affidavits explaining his criminal history and he has been granted bail in all the cases.

¶12

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. contains general allegations against all the accused persons and all the three other co-accused persons have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant Vinay be released on bail in Case Crime No. 585 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.8.2022 Jaswant

¶22

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.08.23 14:15:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay v. State of U.P Through Principal Secretary U.P. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay v. State of U.P Through Principal Secretary U.P. Lucknow

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

Mohd. Wasim @Bhura Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Shahzad Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Bhorik Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sudarshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sheelu Dubey Alias Sandeep Vs State of U.P.