Allowed

Vijay Tomar @ Nitu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024ABAIL/11654/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant Vijay Tomar under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The grant was based on parity with a co-accused. The Court held that criminal history alone is not sufficient to deny bail when there is no material indicating a risk of tampering or intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

Vijay Tomar @ Nitu vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193884

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11654 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Tomar @ Nitu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nafees Ahmad,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 166 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 of U.P. Public Examination Act, Police Station - Kankarkheda, District - Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused Vikram @ Vikram Dahiya, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11198 of 2024 vide order dated 19.11.2024. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has criminal history of four cases which has been explained in para 14 of the affidavit filed along with bail application.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the coaccused has not been disputed by them.

¶11

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself

¶12

cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶13

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Vijay Tomar @ Nitu, 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; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶20

witness;

¶21

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date:- 11.12.2024 Siddhant

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

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

Vijay Tomar @ Nitu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Tomar @ Nitu 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

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Radhika Devi vs State of Up

Sumit Rana vs State of Up and Another

Devi Dayal Singh vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Ankit Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow