Vimal @ Chuha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41634

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3514 of 2025

Applicant :- Vimal @ Chuha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradyumn Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 060 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 118(1), 109, 3(5) BNS, P.S.- Dahi, District - Unnao.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive He submits that 8 persons are named including the present applicant and the allegation of assaulting with knife is against all the persons and it could not be identified that on whose blow, the injured received injuries. The statement of the victim itself is enough to show that he could not identify that who assaulted him with knife. Moreover, the co-accused Neeraj been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 23.6.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5408 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant seeks parity.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that 8 persons are named including the present applicant and the allegation of assaulting with knife is against all the persons and it could not

¶12

be identified that on whose blow, the injured received injuries. The statement of the victim itself is enough to show that he could not identify that who assaulted him with knife. He next submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence; the co-accused Neeraj has already been granted bail coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail on the ground of parity.

¶14

Let the applicant- Vimal @ Chuha 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

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶20

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the 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 of B.N.S.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Shravan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimal @ Chuha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal @ Chuha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ajay Kumar Vs U.O.I. Thru Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Lko. Zonal Unit

Siddharth Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Riyaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pulli @ Puttilal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Roshan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept.. Lko