Vishal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16835

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2411 of 2025

Applicant :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 270 of 2024, under Section 319 (2), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2) B.N.S. & Section 103 Trade Mark Act, P.S.-Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

As per contents of First Information Report, incident is said to have taken place on 23.10.2024 when a police team acting on the basis of information received raided a factory and recovered illegal exhaust fluid urea stored in containers bearing names of reputed Companies. The FIR indicates the name of applicant as being one of the four persons apprehended, who admitted their role in illegal manufacture, storage and distribution of the said urea. It also states that the applicant along with co-accused indicated the name of one Vivek Tiwari as Manager and one Mohd Saaj as owner of the factory.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and even from a perusal of the FIR, it is evident that applicant was only worker in the said factory without any knowledge that urea being produced was illegal. It is also submitted that the main accused Vivek Tiwari has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.1527 of 2025. Co-accused Sonu and Divakar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.128 of 2025 and 319 of 2025, respectively.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing

¶11

the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the applicant even in FIR has been shown only as worker in the said factory and the aspect of his previous knowledge regarding urea produced being illegal is subject matter of evidence during trial. Co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as indicated hereinabove. The applicant is under custody since 24.10.2024.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Vishal 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:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He 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 court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Renu/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko.

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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Arif Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko

Pavan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Salmaan vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Alias Bachha Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another