Vikrant Singh Alias Gappu Singh vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vikrant Singh Alias Gappu Singh vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: applicant to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court; on breach of any condition, the prosecution is at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Vikrant Singh Alias Gappu Singh is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024 (Section 386 I.P.C.), Police Station Sarapatahan, District Jaunpur, during pendency of trial. +2 more

Court's answer

The applicant has remained confined for more than seven months, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged, would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses; the Court opined so without commenting on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

This Court prima facie finds that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R.

Key takeaways

The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of extortion are not made out (prima facie).ratio¶12
The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vivek Varma, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1332 of 2025, decided 14.2.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:21857): Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024, Section 386 I.P.C. (extortion), Police Station Sarapatahan, District Jaunpur. The Court prima facie found delay in lodging the F.I.R. (incident 7.6.2024; FIR 13.6.2024) and that the necessary ingredients of extortion were not made out; with the applicant in custody for over seven months, no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension of evidence-tampering or witness-intimidation shown by the State, the applicant was held entitled to bail without commenting on merits. Release ordered on personal bond and two heavy sureties, with conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and mandating appearance on all trial dates; breach entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation before this Court. Counsel for the applicant had relied on Isaac Isanga Musumba v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21857

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1332 of 2025

Applicant :- Vikrant Singh Alias Gappu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Niharika Singh Parihar,Suresh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024, under Section 386 I.P.C., Police StationSarapatahan, District- Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 7.6.2024. First information report was lodged on 13.6.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of extortion are not made out. There is no allegation in the first information report regarding delivery of any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others vs. State of Maharastra and others (2014) 15 SCC 357 . The applicant had not demanded any money from the informant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.6 of the bail application and paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 15.6.2024. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is delay in lodging

the F.I.R. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of extortion are not made out. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than seven months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant, Vikrant Singh Alias Gappu Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Manish Kr

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad