Vinit Kumar Rai v. State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20615 of 2025 Court No. - 70

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant- Vinit Kumar Rai seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 18 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 319(2) 318(4) 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Cant, District- Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2025. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. As per the FIR, eight accused persons are named and one Dugawati has executed sale-deed in favour of informant- Rakesh Pandey as an imposter. It is further submitted that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the so-called fraud transaction, he is said to be only the marginal witness of the so-called fraud sale-deed. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Versus

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajnish Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Vinit Kumar Rai

.....Applicant(s)

State of U.P.

.....Opposite

Party(s)

1

4. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that applicant has committed the alleged fraud and he is the witness of the alleged sale-deed. It is argued by learned AGA that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further argued that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Though, the applicant is not named in the FIR nor he has received any financial gain/benefit from the informant. He is only the marginal witness of the so-called fraud sale-deed. It also transpires from the perusal of the charge-sheet that the applicant is the marginal witness along with other marginal witness Praveen Tripathi and civil suit had already been decided before the trial court concerned between Smt. Durgawati (real owner of the disputed land) against Rakesh Pandey and the matter has already been compromised before the Lok Adalat and the order has been passed by the competent court on 08.03.2025 in Case No. 130 of 2025, in this regard.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant- Vinit Kumar Rai involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not BAIL No. 20615 of 2025

2

seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

(iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

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

9. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

January 20, 2026

Rama Kant BAIL No. 20615 of 2025

3

(Santosh Rai,J.)

3