Vineet Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144523

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6037 of 2025 Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akshat Sinha,Himanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 01.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kaushambi in Bail Application No.152 of 2025 (Vineet Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.06 of 2025 under Sections 87 and 64(1) BNS and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶7

According to the prosecution case, the appellant enticed away the daughter of the informant who is aged about 20 years.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. After 12 days of the incident, the victim was recovered from the house of the appellant. Further submission is that the victim in her statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNS, the victim herself has admitted that she solemnized marriage with the appellant. As per medical report, nothing internal as well as external injury found on the body of the victim. Further submission is that essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter and as per statement of the victim, the victim is consenting party. Appellant is languishing in jail since 05.01.2025 having no previous criminal history. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside .

¶13

Let the appellant- Vineet Kumar Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 22.8.2025/Ajeet

¶21

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

Vineet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vimal vs State of U.P. and Another

Asha Devi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Chandraveer vs State of U.P.

Krishnchand Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharmveer Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Purusottam Das Goswami vs State of U.P. and 12 Others