Allowed¶26

Vikas Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025CRLA/1706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Criminal Appeal No. 1706 of 2024; Vikas Patel v. State of U.P.; bail granted pending appeal (order dated 19.09.2025); convict in ST No. 578 of 2021 / FIR No. 21 of 2021, Section 302 IPC, P.S. Maheshganj, Distt. Pratapgarh; life imprisonment with fine imposed 29/30.03.2024 by ADJ/Special Judge (EC Act); circumstantial evidence; PW-6 doctor's opinion on injury; no previous criminal history; in custody since 31.01.2021; personal bond and two sureties; conditions of cooperation and no criminal activity.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail during pendency of the appeal on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the two stated conditions. ¶26

Vikas Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail during pendency of the appeal on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the two stated conditions.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant/appellant, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, should be released on bail during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1706 of 2024. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The court found good ground to grant bail: the matter is one of circumstantial evidence in which the prosecution has, prima facie, failed to channelise the story; PW-6's opinion that the injury could be inflicted by falling down creates material doubt; the appellant has no previous criminal history, has been in jail since 31.01.2021, undertook not to misuse the liberty of bail and to cooperate in the appeal, and hearing of the appeal seems unlikely in the near future.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶27

Key takeaways

Release is subject to conditions: the applicant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment and shall not indulge in any criminal activity after release; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail pending appeal — Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Appeal No. 1706 of 2024: second bail application of Vikas Patel, convicted in Sessions Trial No. 578 of 2021 (Case Crime/FIR No. 21 of 2021, Section 302 IPC, P.S. Maheshganj, Distt. Pratapgarh) and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Pratapgarh, vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2024/30.03.2024, is allowed. Grounds found by the court: the case rests on circumstantial evidence in which the prosecution has, prima facie, failed to channelise the story; PW-6 (doctor) gave the opinion that the injury could be inflicted by falling down on the ground, creating material doubt; the appellant has no previous criminal history; he has been in jail since 31.01.2021; he undertook not to misuse the liberty of bail and to cooperate in the hearing of the appeal; and hearing of the appeal seemed unlikely in the near future. Release ordered on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on cooperation in early disposal of the appeal without unnecessary adjournments and abstention from criminal activity, breach being a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1706 of 2024

Vikas Patel

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Ravi Shanker Singh, Amit Singh, Kirti Veer Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 2

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

[Order on Crl. Misc. Application No. IA/6/2025(Bail Application)]

¶11

Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The instant second bail application has been filed by the applicant/appellant of the instant criminal appeal, who is convict of Sessions Trial No. 578 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime/FIR No. 21 of 2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh, and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2024/30.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Pratapgarh, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of the instant appeal.

¶13

Contention put forth by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is that none has seen the occurrence and even the informant was not present at the time of alleged occurrence and when he reached at his home, the dead body of the deceased, Sarita Patel was lying over there and, therefore, the present matter is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has utterly failed to connect and channelize the story. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce the witness, who, in fact, had informed the informant

¶14

CRLA No. 1706 of 2024

¶15

¶16

regarding the occurrence of offence.

¶17

He further pointed out that PW-6, the doctor, whose testimony is deposed before the trial court, has stated that the injury can be inflicted by falling down on the ground and this evidence has not been considered by the learned trial court in its right perspective.

¶18

He added that as per the statement of PW-1, Sanjay Kumar Patel, the incident is an outcome of a quarrel in between the applicant/appellant and the deceased, Sarita Patel and even if assuming the whole incident as a correct, it is a case of sudden provocation but the trial court did not pay attention to this fact.

¶19

He argued that the inquest report was prepared on 30th of January, 2021 i.e. on the next date of the incident and there are only interested witnesses are present and signed on the inquest report. He has also submitted that the statement of minor daughter, Ananya was not recorded, who was the real eye witness of the prosecution case and the spot inspection was done on the pointing out of the informant, who was not present at the time of occurrence and, therefore, the 'Nazari Naksha', prepared by the Investigating Officer, is also not reliable one. He has also shown other perversity and discrepancies in the judgment and order impugned.

¶20

In addition, he argued that there is no criminal history of the applicant/appellant and he was never involved in committing any offence and submitted that there is unlikelihood of hearing of the appearing in near future, thus, the applicant/appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and has submitted that not only the husband of the deceased was examined but her father-in-law, Vijay Bahadur Patel has also been examined and he has supported the prosecution story. He further added that the judgment and order impugned is a well considered order and applicant/appellant was not on bail during trial, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶22

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that the present matter is a case of circumstantial

¶23

CRLA No. 1706 of 2024

¶24

¶25

evidence and it is, prima facie, evident that the prosecution has failed to channelized the story with four corners and PW-6, the doctor has also given other thought that the injury can be inflicted by falling down on the ground which creates material doubt in the prosecution case. Further, the applicant/appellant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 31.01.2021 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and will always cooperate in the hearing of the appeal and there seems to be unlikelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, we find good ground to grant bail.

¶26

In the result, the bail application of the applicant/appellant is allowed.

¶27

Let the applicant/appellant, Vikas Patel , involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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 with the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶29

(ii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶30

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

¶31

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the trial court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶32

Septembe r 19, 2025 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) kkv/

¶33

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Jagdish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dal Singar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bihari Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate, Basti and 3 Ors.

Najma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Complainant of Case Crime No. 443/2018 vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Veeru Nut @ Beerbal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another