Allowed¶11

Vakil Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2025BAIL/20082/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20082 of 2025; Vakil Prasad v. State of U.P.; decided 1.7.2025; bail allowed in case crime No. 75 of 2025, Sections 351(2), 352, 109 BNS, P.S. Ranipur, District Mau; knife attack on complainant/victim, simple-injury contention, Section 109 BNS applicability questioned, no criminal history, custody since 28.4.2025; personal bond plus two sureties in like amount; conditional bail with anti-tampering and trial-cooperation clauses; breach grounds for cancellation; identity/status/residence verification before bond acceptance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Vakil Prasad enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the enumerated conditions. ¶11

Vakil Prasad vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Vakil Prasad enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the enumerated conditions.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Vakil Prasad, involved in case crime No. 75 of 2025 under Sections 351(2), 352 and 109 B.N.S. (P.S. Ranipur, District Mau), is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, submissions of the parties, nature of offence, evidence and complicity of accused, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court held the applicant entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Vakil Prasad to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶11

Key takeaways

Bail granted subject to conditions: no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence; sincere cooperation in trial/investigation without adjournments; no indulgence in criminal activity; attendance per bond conditions; and breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶17
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties to be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL GRANTED (Allahabad HC, Court No. 68, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20082 of 2025; applicant Vakil Prasad; opposite party State of U.P.; decided 1.7.2025. Application for enlargement on bail in case crime No. 75 of 2025 under Sections 351(2), 352 and 109 B.N.S., P.S. Ranipur, District Mau, wherein the F.I.R. alleged the applicant with two others abused the injured and attacked him with knife when the victim protested. Counsel contended all injuries were simple and outside the purview of Section 109 B.N.S., that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in custody since 28.4.2025; the learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but could not dispute these submissions. The court, considering the facts, submissions, nature of offence, evidence and complicity of accused and expressly without expressing any opinion on merits, held the applicant entitled to bail and ordered release on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no inducement/threat/tampering with evidence; sincere cooperation in trial/investigation; no criminal activity; attendance per bond), breach of any condition being ground for cancellation; identity, status and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before acceptance of bonds. No cases cited; no precedent engaged; bond quantum not specified in the order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100877

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20082 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Vakil Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sanjay Kr. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pushpendra Singh Jadon, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed to enlarge the applicant on bail in case crime No. 75 of 2025, u/s 351(2), 352, 109 B.N.S., P.S. Ranipur, District Mau.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the allegations in the F.I.R. the applicant along with two other persons was abusing the injured and when the victim protested them, the applicant along with other accused attacked the injured with knife. It is further submitted that all the injuries are simple in nature and do not fall within the purview of Section 109 B.N.S. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 28.4.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Vakil Prasad , involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶12

i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶13

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.

¶14

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Vandana

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vakil Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Prasad 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

Similar cases

Satyapal Singh and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 10 Others

Anita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Prem Narain Verma Vs Shraddha Lal Addl. Chief Judical Magistrate Court No. 48 Barabanki

Salman vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Home Secretary, Lucknow

Tinku vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Gautam vs State of U.P.