Vinay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134798

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8581 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri J.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 499 of 2023, under Sections 377, 323, 506 IPC and 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court on merit vide order dated 25.04.2024 after considering the fact that applicant committed sodomy upon 11 years old boy but he is pressing the instant second bail application on the ground that applicant is in jail since 18.09.2023 i.e. for almost two years and till date out of seven witnesses of the charge-sheet only one witness could be examined and he could only be examined on 05.03.2025.

¶10

He further submits, charges against applicant were framed on 16.11.2023 and since then summons are being issued but none of the witnesses are appearing before the court concerned except PW1 and after one and half years he could be examined. He further submits, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial. He further submits, there is no evidence that applicant is causing any delay in trial.

¶11

He further submits, law is settled that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail. He further submits, as in

¶12

spite of repeated summons prosecution witnesses are not appearing, therefore, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court after considering the merit of the case but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since for almost two years and till date only one witness could be examined out of seven witnesses of the charge-sheet.

¶14

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that on 16.11.2023 charges were framed against applicant and PW-1 could only be examined on 05.03.2025 and even PW-1 is formal witness. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence which can suggests that applicant is adopting delaying tactics. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

However, this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that allegations against the applicant are quite serious and he committed offence of sodomy against 11 years old boy but it reflects, he is in jail since 18.09.2023 i.e. for almost two years and till date out of seven witnesses of the charge-sheet only one witness could be examined and even he (PW-1) could only be examined on 05.03.2025, however, charges against applicant were framed on 16.11.2023.

¶17

Further, PW-1 is formal witness and till date in spite of repeated summons issued against witnesses of facts none appeared before the trial court, therefore, it reflects, witnesses are reluctant to appear before the court concerned.

¶18

Further, there is no evidence that applicant caused delay in trial. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail.

¶19

Further, considering the facts of the case coupled with long incarceration of the applicant it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused has not been violated.

¶20

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶21

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant - Vinay Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 AK Pandey

¶30

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

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Samarjeet vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Karan vs State of U.P.

Abdul Wazid vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Singh Alias Sugriv Singh vs State of U.P.