Vikas Pal @ Hanuman Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1004 of 2026

¶3

Vikas Pal @ Hanuman Das

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddhartha Sinha, Mohammad Taha Chishti, Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Aman Sharma, Ichchha Singh

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Ram Chandra Singh for the applicant, Shri Uttam Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Manish Vaish for the complainant.

¶12

The applicant is arraigned in Crime No.1 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 427, 307, 34 IPC relating to police station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow.

¶13

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 23.09.2024.

¶14

The instant second bail application has been pressed on behalf of the applicant indicating that the applicant has been falsely implicated. Reference has been made to the FIR in question to indicate that the informant, namely, Adarsh Singh who is the brother of the injured lodged the FIR against the applicant, two other named co-accused and two or three other unknown persons.

¶15

The crux of the submission was that the informant had specifically named the applicant and the other co-accused Rahul Soni with the allegations that they had assaulted his brother with a stick and sharp edged weapon. It was sought to be urged that Adarsh Singh was not an eye witness. Moreover, the alleged eye witnesses who were independent witness, namely, Jyotish Kumar Modi, Sikandar Modi and Aakash Singh

¶16

BAIL No. 1004 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

they did not name the applicant.

¶19

It was also urged that the FIR was lodged on 03.01.2024 at 8.23 P.M. whereas the incident allegedly occurred on 03.01.2024 at around 1.30 P.M. It was further submitted that the discharge summary from the hospital of the injured would indicate that he was admitted in a government hospital on 03.01.2024 at around 12.00 noon, therefore, alleging that the applicant had assaulted the injured at around 1.30 P.M. apparently becomes doubtful.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further urged that the informant was not an eye witness and the alleged eye witnesses did not ascribe any role to the applicant. Moreover, even the statement of the injured, a copy of which is on record as Annexure C.A.5 with the counteraffidavit filed by the State indicates that the injured has made a general statement but no specific role has been ascribed to the applicant that he attacked and assaulted the injured with any sharp edged weapon.

¶21

It has further been pointed out that there are several discrepancies which create a doubt over the prosecution case and the story set up by the prosecution that the applicant attacked the injured with a 'danda', which if taken to be correct at its face value, yet that would not result in grievous injuries. The allegation that the injured was assaulted with sharp edged weapon and an iron rod, then the injuries from such weapon and rod are not corroborated from the medical report.

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances where the applicant is in jail since 09.01.2024 and the trial has yet not commenced, that is to say that no evidence has been led and the trial in such circumstances is not likely to conclude, hence the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail especially when the other co-accused, namely, Rahul Soni who has been ascribed with the role of assaulting the injured with an iron rod has already been enlarged on bail on 26.04.2024 by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.2716 of 2024.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the medical report clearly indicates grievous injuries coupled with the fact that the statement of the doctor also indicates that the injured

¶24

BAIL No. 1004 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

had suffered grievous injuries and had they been a little more severe, the same could have been fatal for the injured.

¶27

It is further urged that all these grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant were available and taken note of by the court while rejecting the first bail applicant and there are apparently no new grounds. Accordingly, the second bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶28

Shri Manish Vaish, learned counsel for the complainant has also supported the submissions of the learned A.G.A. and in addition has urged that despite the rejection of the first bail application on 23.09.2024, the applicant moved an application for discharge. For the aforesaid reason, the matter remained pending before the trial court. The applicant made all efforts to delay the said proceedings and it was only at a later stage the application was considered and rejected followed by framing of charges as late as on 01.12.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances, even if there has been a delay in trial, it is solely on account of the applicant himself and he cannot take the benefit of a longer period of incarceration without trial.

¶29

Shri Vaish has also urged that the entire submission of the learned Senior Counsel is on the premise as if the first bail application is being considered. There is no new ground made out for considering the second bail application and in such circumstance the second bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶30

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶31

It is not disputed that this is a second bail application. This Court is not required to enter into the merits at this stage but the fact remains that from the perusal of the order passed by this Court rejecting the first bail application on 23.09.2024, this Court had clearly noticed that the bail application was being rejected in the given circumstances at the said stage.

¶32

The applicant is incarceration since 09.01.2024 and even though the chargehseet was filed on 05.04.2024 yet the trial could not proceed and

¶33

BAIL No. 1004 of 2026

¶34

4

¶35

this gives a legitimate right to an under trial accused to press for his liberty. This right of liberty is to be balanced with the right of the complainant and prosecution and in the given situation there has been no real apprehension regarding the applicant fleeing justice or influencing any witness or tampering with the evidence.

¶36

The learned A.G.A. nor the learned counsel for the complainant could dispute that the custody of the applicant is not required as to investigation insofar as the applicant is concerned has been completed.

¶37

Since the time of rejection of the first bail application, the applicant has been in jail for more than two years. It could not be disputed that no prosecution witness has been examined till date though seven witnesses are to be examined and thus the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

¶38

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned A.G.A. that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing injustice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and balancing the competing interest of the applicant whose life and liberty is pitted against a trial which has not yet commenced, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the case expeditiously.

¶39

Let the applicant Vikas Pal @ Hanuman Das involved in FIR/Case Crime No.1 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 427, 307, 34 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶40

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶41

BAIL No. 1004 of 2026

¶42

5

¶43

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶44

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian penal Code.

¶45

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶46

(iv) If the applicant at any stage attempts to influence any witness or tamper with any evidence, the complainant shall be entitled to move an application for cancellation of bail.

¶47

(v) The applicant 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, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶48

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

¶49

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶50

March 17, 2026

¶51

ank

¶52

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Pal @ Hanuman Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

Vikas Pal @ Hanuman Das 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

Executive Engineer Nirman KHAND-1,PUBLIC Works Deptt. Distt.Gonda vs Presiding Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner,Devipatan Division Distt. Gonda and 2 Others

M/S Data Link Solution Thru. Proprietor Kamlesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Agarwal vs Ram Baran (dead) through his legal heir Thakur Prasad Yadav and Ors.

Sujeet Singh and Another vs Om Prakash and 10 Others

M/S Agarwal and Company Thru. Proprietor Anubhav Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Commercial Tax Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Skinet 3 Broadband Thru. Proprietor Mr.Arvind Singh @ Kunwar Arvind Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others