Vakil Kumar Bind and Another vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38624 of 2025

Vakil Kumar Bind And Another

				.....	Applicant(s)
		Versus
State of U.P.					.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Rama Vishwa	Kant karma	Yadav,	Satyendra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants Vakil Kumar Bind and Rajesh Kumar Bind with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 729 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 317(2) of BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., accused applicants have looted Rs. 75,000/- from the possession of the informant when he was going to Bagheswar Dham. He further submits that accused applicants were arrested on the spot by the public and the aforementioned amount was recovered from the possession of the accused applicants. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that there is no independent witness of the recovery that has been shown against the applicants. He further submits that accused applicants have no criminal history. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed forth

¶9

BAIL No. 38624 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused persons have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themself available before the court whenever required. Applicants are languishing in jail since 22.09.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence. He further contended that charge-sheet in the instant matter has been filed on 28.09.2025.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶17

(iv) The applicants 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 of accused personally to

¶18

BAIL No. 38624 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶21

(v) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶23

Identity and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶25

November 21, 2025

¶26

Bhanu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vakil Kumar Bind and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Kumar Bind and Another 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

Anoop Urf Rinku vs State of U.P.

Naveen Singh vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Awnish Alias Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P.

Niraj vs State of U.P.