Allowed

Vinay Kumar Sharma Alias Bobby v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023ABAIL/7018/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the anticipatory bail application of Vinay Kumar Sharma Alias Bobby facing charges under IPC Sections 419, 420, 120B, 34 and Arms Act. The court cited Apex Court precedent and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial upon furnishing personal bond with two sureties and adhering to specified conditions regarding movement and cooperation.

Vinay Kumar Sharma Alias Bobby Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157672

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7018 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Sharma Alias Bobby Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aneet Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 10 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 120B, 34 of IPC and Sections 3/5/25(7) of Arms Act, Police Station G.R.P. Tundla Junction, District Firozabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. In the first anticipatory bail application, the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 10.11.2022 but subsequently, the said case was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 19.04.2023.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the co-accused persons Shadab and Arshad are stated to have arrested in a raid conducted by G.R.P. Tundla Junction on 22.04.2022 at about 11:50 PM and a recovery of 500 cartridges in all were recovered from their possession.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The arrested co-accused persons had nominated the co-accused Faizan @ Sultan in their statements and in the statement of co-accused Faizan @ Sultan, the name of one Prateek had come up and from whose possession, 25 cartridges were recovered. The name of the applicant has come up later on in the statement of co-accused person which is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted in the first anticipatory bail application and he is ready to cooperate in future also.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the

¶12

learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Vinay Kumar Sharma Alias Bobby involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶16

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

ii. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶19

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 7.8.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Kumar Sharma Alias Bobby v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Sharma Alias Bobby v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Pal Singh Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjali Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Pandit @ Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another