Vinay Pratap and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

Allowed¶¶12

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

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025NABAIL/1589/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; S. 482 BNSS; AB till conclusion of trial; parity with co-accused Sunil Kumar And 4 Others (AB U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6349 of 2024, order dated 25.07.2024); Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC online SC 98; Case Crime No. 80 of 2022; P.S. Sakrauli; District Etah; Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 352, 353, 188, 504 IPC; 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act; 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act; Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act 1897; personal bond with two sureties; surrender of passport; Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement; Vinay Pratap; Chandrapal; Rajendra Pal; Rajbahadur; State of U.P.; Ravi Pandey; G.A./A.G.A.; Allahabad High Court; Court No. 70; Deepak Verma, J.; order dated 4.3.2025; 2025:AHC:30462.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants Vinay Pratap, Chandrapal, Rajendra Pal and Rajbahadur till conclusion of trial in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not to leave India during pendency of trial without prior permission of the trial court; (ii) to surrender passport, if any, forthwith to remain in trial court custody; (iii) no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to dissuade any person acquainted with the facts from disclosing them; (iv) undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, failing which trial court may treat default as abuse of liberty of bail; (v) trial court may take appropriate action in case of misuse of liberty of bail; (vi) personal presence before the trial court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants Vinay Pratap, Chandrapal, Rajendra Pal and Rajbahadur till conclusion of trial in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not to leave India during pendency of trial without prior permission of the trial court; (ii) to surrender passport, if any, forthwith to remain in trial court custody; (iii) no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to dissuade any person acquainted with the facts from disclosing them; (iv) undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, failing which trial court may treat default as abuse of liberty of bail; (v) trial court may take appropriate action in case of misuse of liberty of bail; (vi) personal presence before the trial court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants (Vinay Pratap and 3 others) should be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, Police Station Sakrauli, District Etah. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

Ratio / Principle

The applicants Vinay Pratap, Chandrapal, Rajendra Pal and Rajbahadur were ordered to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned, thereby satisfying the parity claimed with the co-accused.

Key takeaways

The grant of anticipatory bail was made without expressing any opinion upon the ultimate merits of the case either way, so as not to adversely affect the trial of the case.obiter¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 70), order dated 4.3.2025, Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.: Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 1589 of 2025 of Vinay Pratap, Chandrapal, Rajendra Pal and Rajbahadur allowed. The applicants sought release on bail till conclusion of trial in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, Police Station Sakrauli, District Etah (Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 352, 353, 188, 504 I.P.C., 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897), claiming parity with co-accused Sunil Kumar And 4 Others who had been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6349 of 2024. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but did not dispute the applicants' submissions. Considering the arguments and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98, the Court held the applicants entitled to anticipatory bail, allowed the application without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits, and directed release till conclusion of trial on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, with six conditions including surrender of passports, no departure from India without permission, no inducement/threat/promise to witnesses, undertaking against seeking adjournments, trial-court action on misuse, and mandatory personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:30462.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30462

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1589 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinay Pratap And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard Sri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 352, 353, 188, 504 I.P.C., 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Police Station- Sakrauli, DistrictEtah, till conclusion of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next submitted that similarly placed coaccused, Sunil Kumar And 4 Others, have been granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6349 of 2024 and claims parity with the co-accused persons. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed .

Let the applicants- Vinay Pratap, Chandrapal, Rajendra Pal and Rajbahadur , who are involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

i. The applicants shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

ii. The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

iii. That the applicants 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;

iv. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

v. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law.

vi. The applicants 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Aditya

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