Allahabad High Court
Vinod Singh vs State Of U.P. on 10 June, 2025
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:96061
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4601 of 2025
Applicant :- Vinod Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.625 of 2022 registered under Sections 384, 376, 328 and 120-B IPC & 67 of Information Technology Act at Police Station- Kokhraj, District Kaushambi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even his name is missing in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 3.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3764 of 2023 and later on final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in the added Sections of 376, 328 and 120-B I.P.C. Applicant has two previous criminal history in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. Copy of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the application. He next submitted that co-accused, Loknath having an identical role has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail on 6.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11535 of 2024. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, wherein the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Vinod Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 10.6.2025
Arvind
