Vinay vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30933

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1380 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R S Dubey,Savita Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri R. S. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2024, under Sections 103(2), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) BNS, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person with regard to murder of son of the informant. He further submitted that during investigation, through the statements of injured Shobhit Chaudhary and other witnesses, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶10

He further submitted that from the statements of these witnesses, it reflects that co-accused Abhishek Yadav @ Sadhu caused knife injury to the deceased Rohit while co-accused Shivam Sharma caused knife injury in the abdomen of injured Shobhit Chaudhary and from their statements, it could not be reflected that applicant also caused any injury either to the deceased or to the injured.

¶11

He further submitted that along with applicant, co-accused Aryan kashyap was also made accused with similar allegation but he was also challaned under the provisions of SC/ST Act and when his bail was dismissed by the court concerned then he challenged the order before this Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2025 under the provisions of SC/ST Act and on 17.02.2025 his appeal

¶12

was allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and he was directed to be released on bail. He further submitted that case of applicant is exactly at par with co-accused Aryan Kashyap.

¶13

He further submitted that however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

However, nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation through the statements of witnesses including statement of injured, name of the applicant was surfaced in the present matter along with others including co-accused Aryan Kashyap and as per the injured witness, co-accused Abhishek Yadav inflicted knife injury to the deceased while co-accused Shivam Sharma inflicted knife injury to him and from the statements of injured and other witnesses, it could not be reflected that applicant caused any injury either to the deceased or to the injured.

¶17

Further, co-accused Aryan Kashyap has already been released on bail after considering entire facts of the case and case of applicant is at par with him.

¶18

Further, however, apart form the present case, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and in the present matter, he is in jail since 20.07.2024 i.e. for last more than seven months.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Vinay be released on bail in the aforesaid

¶22

case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(ii) 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

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

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 KK Patel

¶29

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nandu Alias Anand vs State of U.P.

Pooran Singh vs State of U.P.

Vishal Pandey vs State of U.P.

Premvir vs State of U.P.

Rizwan vs State of U.P.

Anees vs State of U.P.