Allowed

Vikash Dohre Alias Golu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025BAIL/43488/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in an organized crime case where the applicant was named only during investigation, no test identification parade was held, and the recovery had no independent witness. The co-accused had already been granted bail. The court enlarged the applicant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non-tampering with evidence and non-pressurising witnesses.

Vikash Dohre Alias Golu vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43488 of 2025

¶2

Vikash Dohre Alias Golu

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dileep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 111(2)b BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Anand Baheliya in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs.7400/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is contended that the said Indian currency belongs to the applicant. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 13 of the bail application. The coaccused Anand Baheliya has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23331 of 2025. The applicant is in jail since 25.06.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

BAIL No. 43488 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. The co-accused Anand Baheliya has been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Vikash Dohre Alias Golu , 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 the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

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

¶19

December 10, 2025

¶20

Manish Kr

¶21

(Vivek Varma,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikash Dohre Alias Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Dohre Alias Golu 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

Onkar Singh @ Onkar Nath Shukla vs State of U.P.

Ravi Shekhar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mauji Lal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Suka vs State of U.P.

Braham Singh vs State of U.P.

Rakesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others