Vinod Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24266

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3589 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ratnesh Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 74 of 2025 under Sections 87, 352, 351 (2) BNS, P.S. Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 01.12.2024 when the main accused Anuj Sharma allegedly enticed away the minor daughter of informant. Applicant is indicated in the FIR as being related to the said Anuj Sharma and has facilitated the enticement.

¶9

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the statement victim herself who does not attribute any role in the enticement upon applicant. It is submitted that the only role attributed is that of having ensured transportation to the said main accused. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 19.03.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶10

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application but does not dispute the said facts. It is also admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that there is no active role indicated either in the FIR or any statement of victim with regard to applicant having enticed away the minor daughter of informant. The applicant is under incarceration since 19.03.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel 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.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant- Vinod involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) 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

(ii) The applicant 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 269 BNS.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 BNS.

¶21

(iv) 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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Satish

¶23

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

Vinod v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagdambika Prasad Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Yunva Kalyan Evam Prantiye Rakshak Dal Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kamal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramkumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Priti Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shajid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another