Allowed

Vijaypal Alias Bija v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2025BAIL/33121/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a case under Section 105 B.N.S., citing belated FIR, vague allegations, lack of criminal antecedents, and parity with a co-accused who had already been released on bail. The State could not satisfactorily oppose the application.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Vijaypal Alias Bija vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33121 of 2025

¶3

Vijaypal Alias Bija

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 64

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Purkaji, District Muzaffarnagar during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 20.05.2025. The first information report was lodged on 21.05.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, the deceased received three injuries. Single injury on the head, face and left eye. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is 'cranial cerebral damage as a result of ante mortem head injury' . Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused injury on the head of the deceased Vipin Kumar. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Rampal has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27888 of 2025, Rampal v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 27.05.2025 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

BAIL No. 33121 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. According to the postmortem report, the deceased received three injuries. Single injury on the head, face and left eye. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is 'cranial cerebral damage as a result of ante mortem head injury' . The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused injury on the head of the deceased Vipin Kumar. Identically placed co-accused Rampal has been granted bail by this court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost five months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Vijaypal @ Bija, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶16

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶17

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶18

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

(Vivek Varma,J.)

¶21

October 29, 2025 SKT/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijaypal Alias Bija v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaypal Alias Bija v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shazid Shahidi vs State of U.P.

Lalchand vs State of U.P.

Sunaina vs State of U.P.

Nakli Singh vs State of U.P.

Ankit @ Jitendra and Another vs State of U.P.

Ramdas vs State of U.P.