Allowed

Vinay @ Vinno v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2022BAIL/8872/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Vinay @ Vinno in a criminal case involving rioting and criminal intimidation, finding merit in submissions regarding false implication and vague FIR role without adjudicating case merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering evidence, influencing witnesses, and appearing in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8872 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay @ Vinno Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Dubey,Arvind Singh Sengar,Prem Singh,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken in the record.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.407 of 2021 at Police Station-Hathras Gate, District-Hathras under Sections 147, 148, 149, 354Kha, 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2021.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Hathras on 27.01.2022.

¶8

Shri Arvind Singh Sengar, learned counsel and Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R. arises out of a neighbourhood in the village which escalated into a brawl. The F.I.R. assigns a vague and general role to the applicant in the incident. There are seven named accused. The applicant has

¶9

not been identified as the principal offender who inflicted grievous injury on the victim. The victim sustained the injury in a fall. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and contends that the same has no bearing on the instant case.

¶10

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A. and Shri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, they do not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶11

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant-Vinay @ Vinno 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.

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.25 15:35:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay @ Vinno v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay @ Vinno 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

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh @ Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs the Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau