Vineet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43608

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2371 of 2025

Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Vishwakarma,Kapoor Chandra Vishwakarma,Shikhar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 352, 324(4) of B.N.S., Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the first information report, the applicant along with other co-accused are alleged to have caused fire arm injury to the brother of the informant namely Sumit and one Shivam. As per the medical report, the two injured sustained injuries which were found simple in nature and in the opinion of the doctor, the same was caused by a hard and blunt object. In the statement of the injured, a vague role has been assigned to the applicant. The nature of injury shows that there was no intent to murder the injured persons. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The investigation is still pending. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned brief holder has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the

¶12

applicant and the fact that as per the medical report, the injuries sustained by the two injured were found simple in nature. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Vineet Kumar be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193 (3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the Police Commissioner concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶20

The application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Sachin Mishra

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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