Vindadeen Kushwaha vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Vindadeen Kushwaha seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.246 of 2025, under Sections 305, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Karbai, District Mahoba.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is languishing in jail since 28.8.2025. It is submitted that applicant alongwith 3-4 unknown accused persons are named in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the FIR mining lease was issued without provision of law by preparing forged documents by applicant and other co-accused persons. It is argued that applicant was working as clerk (munshi) of informant and his name came into light during the course of investigation on the basis of his confessional statement in which the fact was discovered that some security papers were sold by applicant and five security papers were said to be recovered from his possession which was related to different license holders having details of numbers, date etc but no independent and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo and arrest of applicant. It is further argued that applicant is not the actual beneficiary or committed any fraud,

¶12

BAIL No. 40800 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

embezzlement of amount etc with the informant or any other person and he has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is lastly submitted that coaccused Vikas Rajauriya having similar role has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40023 of 2025 and parity is sought in the matter. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on

¶21

BAIL No. 40800 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

November 19, 2025 RA

¶28

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vindadeen Kushwaha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vindadeen Kushwaha 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

Similar cases

Shivam vs State of U.P.

Ajit vs State of U.P.

Monu Pathak vs State of U.P.

Reza vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P.

Yuvraj Mishra vs State of U.P.