Vishal vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78575

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16065 of 2025

Applicant :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Mr. Amit Kumar Malviya, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶7

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41834 of 2024.

¶8

Heard Mr. Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Kumar Malviya and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.

¶9

This second bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Vishal, who is involved in Sessions Trial No.71 of 2025 (State Vs. Vishal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.536 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 61(2), 318(2), 127(2), 351(2), 317(2) B.N.S. and Section 67-A I.T. Act, 2021, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Agra during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submitted that the incident took place on 24.8.2024 where FIR was lodged on 16.9.2024 after lapse of 24 days but there is no explanation regarding delay in lodging the present FIR. The victim is a major lady. He submits that there are major contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and FIR lodged by the victim herself. As per medical report of the victim, there is internal or external

¶11

injury found on the body of the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that similarly placed coaccused, namely, Bhopendra Alias Bhopey, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.4.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12033 of 2025, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.9.2024 having no previous criminal history.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Vishal , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial

¶17

Court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNSS.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS, may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNSS.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting 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.

¶23

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Krishna*

¶25

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

Vishal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal 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

Kailash Mourya vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagina Devi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rohit vs State of U.P. and Another

Kripashankar Sharma vs Brajpal Singh and 2 Others

Shyam Singh and Another vs State of U.P.