Vinesh vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26299

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3648 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Datta Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2013 at Police Station-G.R.P., District-Mathura under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 186, 216, 332, 333, 353, 224, 225, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 141 Railway Act.

¶7

The applicant is on interim bail granted by this Court on 05.02.2025. Prior to that the applicant was in jail since 23.07.2014.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Uma Datta Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶9

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

¶10

The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

¶11

The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings.

¶12

The trial is moving at a snail's pace and shows no signs of an early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in the trial.

¶13

The status report sent by the learned trial court in the bail application of co-accused Sonu @ Monu @ Munish Koli registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3068 of 2024 records that as per the calender the prosecution proposes to examine 44 witnesses. However, only four witnesses have been examined till date.

¶14

Prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the incarceration of the applicant.

¶15

Inordinate delay in concluding trial has lead to an indefinite detention of the applicant without there being any credible evidence to implicate him in the offence. Right of the applicant to a speedy trial has been violated.

¶16

Learned AGA contends that the applicant is facing prosecution in some more cases apart from the instant case. Rejoining this issue, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person and is in jail. He does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the status of the said criminal case could not be

¶17

obtained and stated in the first instance in the bail

¶18

application. However, on the basis of records available with the learned AGA and the upon instructions from the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was falsely framed in the said case. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

¶19

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶20

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Vinesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after

¶25

due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) .

¶26

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶27

This Court would like to notice the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Uma Datta Tripathi. The applicant has been in jail since 2014. The applicant is a financially destitute person who belongs to a marginalized section of the society. The applicant was abandoned by his family and friends alike after his imprisonment. This is the first bail application. The applicant was able to file his first bail application before this Court only on 24.01.2025 i.e. almost ten and a half years after his imprisonment. The applicant could not approach this Court at an earlier point in time to seek his remedy of bail as he did not have access to legal aid nor was given legal advice to approach this Court earlier and also did not possess resources to file the instant bail application.

¶28

Prima facie the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P. reported at 2022

¶29

SCC Online All 623 and Ramu Vs. State of U.P., reported at 2024 SCC OnLine All 4618 have been violated.

¶30

The reports sent by the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority record that the applicant does not need any legal aid since he has a private counsel in the trial court. The reports of the trial court and DLSA are misreading of the judgement of this Court rendered in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra). It is the responsibility of the trial court and DLSA to record a finding whether the concerned accused has been apprised of or provided legal advice of his right to seek bail in a prompt manner, and whether that right has been exercised. The mere fact that the accused is represented by a private counsel in the trial court does not absolve the trial court and the DLSA of the aforesaid obligations under Anil and . Gaur (supra) Ramu (supra)

¶31

Failure to file a bail application on a timely basis gives rise to an inference that the prisoner could not approach the Court for grant of bail due to lack of access to legal aid.This inference will arise even if the accused has engaged a counsel of their choice. In fact this Court is finding that in a large number of cases the accused persons have not been apprised of their right to seek bail in light of the judgements rendered by this Court in Anil Gaur

¶32

(supra) and Ramu (supra) by their own counsels. Hence this imperative requirements for the trial courts/DLSAs to make independent enquiries and record appropriate findings/opinion whether the accused has been apprised of the right to seek bail in a prompt manner and whether such right has been exercised. The Court is saying this at the cost of repetition in view of the large scale failure to understand the correct import of the judgement rendered in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra) .

¶33

An obligation is cast on the trial courts/Magistrates, the DLSAs and the jail authorities to proactively and independently examine the need of each prisoner for legal aid at each trigger event in a timeline enumerated in Anil Gaur (supra) and Ramu (supra). The presumption about the need of the said class of legal aid will exist till such enquiry is completed. Thereafter legal aid shall be provided to every eligible prisoner/accused to apprise them of the right to seek bail and to file a bail application before the competent court. The enquiry into the need for legal aid shall be made by the magistrate, trial courts, District Legal Services Authorities, Jail Superintendents without waiting for an application from the prisoners seeking legal aid, and irrespective of the fact whether the accused/prisoner is represented through a counsel before the trial court or has been provided a defence counsel before the trial court.

¶34

A copy of this order shall be sent to the Director, JTRI, Lucknow by Registrar General forthwith.

¶35

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Pravin

¶36

Digitally signed by :- AJAY BHANOT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bani Singh Yaduvanshi vs Managing Director Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Alias Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Singh Urf Chhotu vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar vs Union of India and 5 Others

E.S.I. Diploma Pharmacist Association Uttar Pradesh through Registered and Another vs Union of India and 5 Others

Rajiv Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others