Vineet vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2026, under Sections 308(5), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Ghandhi Park, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was lodged against co-accused Yash Thakur and unknown persons with regard to extortion but during investigation on the basis of statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant before police he has been made accused in the present matter and except the confessional statement of applicant and co-accused there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶13

He further submits, actually unfortunately apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six other cases, therefore, during investigation police also implicated the applicant in the present matter. He further submits, entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application and in all the cases applicant is on bail.

¶14

He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.01.2026.

¶15

BAIL No. 14269 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

However, as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Yash Thakur, who was named in the FIR, tried to extort money from informant but except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant before the police it appears, there is no other evidence against applicant on record.

¶20

Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in all the cases he is on bail and considering his criminal history, at this stage the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant in the present matter cannot be ruled out.

¶21

Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.01.2026.

¶22

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant - Vineet be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶29

BAIL No. 14269 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶32

May 6, 2026 AK Pandey

¶33

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vineet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet v. State of U.P.

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

Satendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ayodhya Gond Vs State of U.P.

Titu Vs State of U.P.

Amarnath Sharma Alias Babbu vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Ahirwar vs State of U.P.

Satendra vs State of U.P.