Vakil Nishad vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16774 of 2025

Vakil Nishad

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Hirdesh Kumar Yadav,	Sushma Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Vakil Nishad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.932 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged in pursuance of letter dated 28.11.2024 of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) written to the S.H.O. concerned with regard to forged birth certificate of applicant's son. He further submits that the birth certificate of Mahesh Nishad, who was son of accused applicant was prepared by the broker of the area. He further submits that during the course of investigation proceedings this fact was discovered that the accused applicant prepared the forged document to get the benefit of juvenility. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that nothing incriminating or forged document has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history at his credit. He further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶10

BAIL No. 16774 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

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 has 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. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.03.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶15

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5- 6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under

¶19

BAIL No. 16774 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶22

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶24

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

¶25

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Santosh Rai,J.)

October 15, 2025

Bhanu

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vakil Nishad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Nishad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubham Tripathi vs Union of India

Ramesh Chandra Katiyar vs State of U.P.

Devendra Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P.

Devendra Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav vs State of U.P.