Allowed

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025BAIL/38805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the B.N.S., the Court allowed the applicant's release on bail. Finding that the role assigned was vague and there was no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or delay in trial despite prolonged confinement, the Court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to appear in the trial court, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38805 of 2025

¶3

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.		....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Akhilendra Kumar Kanhaiya Soni : G.A.	Yadav,	Krishna

¶6

Court No. - 71

¶7

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit, explaining therein the criminal history of the accused-applicant, filed in the Court today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the Staterespondents.

¶10

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2025, under Sections 105, 191(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, eight named accused including the applicant and 10-15 unknown persons were nominated. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 14.06.2025 at 23:00 hours. The injured was declared dead on 15.06.2025 at 02.00 p.m. The inquest proceedings began at 19:31 hours. The first information report was lodged later on 15.06.2025 at 20:38 hours. It is contended that despite inquest proceedings having commenced, the first information report had not been registered earlier and the inquest proceeding was deliberately delayed, concluding only on 16.06.2025 at 10.00 a.m. According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained 15 injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is Coma due to ante mortem ligature strangulation. It is further submitted that a vague and general role has been assigned to the

¶12

BAIL No. 38805 of 2025

¶13

¶14

applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who strangulated the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 11.09.2025 having criminal history of two cases which are duly explained in para 23 of the paper book and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶15

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who strangulated the deceased. The applicant has explained the criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than four 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.

¶17

Let the applicant- Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel , 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:

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

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

¶22

November 13, 2025 Anjali

¶23

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Hema @ Prem Lata vs State of U.P.

Akeel Mohammad and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Kaptan Alias Kaptan Singh Alias Sukhdev vs State of U.P.

Sumit vs State of U.P.

Akash Kumar vs State of U.P.

Bhuttan @ Mohd. Sikander vs State of U.P. and Another