Vinay Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41815 of 2025

¶3

Vinay Kumar Sharma

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amit Kumar Dubey, Rakesh Prasad Mishra	Ankit Shukla,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 70

¶7

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Vinay Kumar Sharma. The first bail applicant i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18768 of 2023 was rejected vide order dated 30.09.2024 by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶10

Accused applicant Vinay Kumar Sharma has filed this second bail application with prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Jalesar, District Etah during pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that though the applicant was named in the F.I.R., but he has not committed any fraud or embezzlement any amount from the informant or any other person. He further submits that as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R. accused applicant fraudulently misappropriated the amount of about Rs. 10 lakh. He further submits that accused applicant was manager in the company 'Satin Credit Care Network Limited', which was registered for the benefit of women, but no specific details are mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of P.W.-1 which was recorded on 03.12.2024 and 10.12.2024, with regard to specific role and involvement of accused

¶12

BAIL No. 41815 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

applicant Vinay Kumar Sharma in this case. He further submits that after rejection of the first bail application, the statement of informant P.W.-1 Samshad was recorded on 03.12.2024 and cross examination has also been completed and only general role has been assigned to the accused applicant and other co-accused persons in the statement of P.W.-1. He further submits that criminal history of two cases against the applicant has been explained in para no. 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. 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 applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 20.02.2023.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, however, he could not dispute the aforementioned facts stated by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶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

BAIL No. 41815 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

November 26, 2025

¶28

Bhanu

¶29

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

Vinay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Nida vs State of U.P.

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

Raja Singh vs State of U.P.

Manish Agrahari (Gupta) vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Alias Raju vs State of U.P.