Vinit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 758 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinit And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh,Sanoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has filed compliance affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case Crime No. 432 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 352, 351(1), 87, 137(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Unit Ganga Nagar Phoolpur (Commissionerate, Prayagraj), during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicants are having no concern with the alleged incident. Instant first information report has been lodged due to previous enmity. Victim in her statements recorded under Sections 181 & 183 B.N.S.S. has not supported the prosecution story and she has made specific allegation against co-accused, Vishal. Applicants are brother and father of the co-accused, Vishal. Investigation is going on. He next submitted that co-accused, Kajal and Another have been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report vide order dated 27.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 482 BNSS No. 662 of 2025 and claims parity with the co-accused persons. In case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants with the contention that the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail as, prima facie , case is made out. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on

¶10

record, only on the basis of imaginary fear, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶12

Let the applicants- Vinit and Ramesh, who is involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report U/s 193(3) (i) BNSS, 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 :-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

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 applicants.

¶17

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 certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶18

The application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Aditya

¶20

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

Vinit and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinit and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases