High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Bhaskar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Vinit Dubey, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.369 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 125, 103(1) BNS, Police Station Mubarakpur, district Azamgarh.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 16.9.2024 by Yogendra Singh against five persons namely Ramesh Dubey, Amit Dubey, Suresh Dubey, Babloo Dubey and Ramashraya Chaurasiya @ Mulla alleging therein that his elder brother Tejveer Singh had two days back decided to purchase a cow of Rs.50,000/- for which he had given advance of Rs.5,000/-. When he went to the house of Ramashraya Chaurasiya to bring the purchased cow, he told that he has sold the cow to Ramesh Dubey just now and they are taking it and he may do whatever he likes on which he went ahead and tried to stop them and told about it to Ramesh Dubey after which the accused persons started assaulting him and one of them ran and brought a gun and exhorted on which there was a fire on his brother Tejveer Singh and also on him. The other persons resorted to assault by bricks and stones. People had made a video of it. He took his brother to the hospital. He also received injuries. His brother has died. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is argued that a vide of the place of occurrence was recorded which was seen by Vishal Singh who stated that Suresh Dubey is carrying a gun with him and his son Praveen Dubey assaulting with bricks and stones and besides them one person Ranjeet Dubey @ Babloo is standing. The implication of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in which it is stated that he was standing beside Suresh Dubey. It is argued that no overt-act has been assigned to the applicant. It is further argued that investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. Co-accused Praveen Dubey, Bablu Dubey @ Ranjeet and Ramashray Chaurasia alias Mulla have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.4.2025, 16.1.2025 and 20.1.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.2423 of 2025, 41693 of 2024 and 41974 of 2024, copies of the said orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. It is argued that applicant has one criminal history of Case Crime No.258 of 2024 which has been explained in para no.30 of the affidavit in support of bail application. The applicant is in jail since 6.11.2024.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant has surfaced during investigation. No overt-act has been assigned to the applicant. investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. Co- accused persons have been granted bail.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant-Vinit Dubey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Bhaskar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Vinit Dubey, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.369 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 125, 103(1) BNS, Police Station Mubarakpur, district Azamgarh.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 16.9.2024 by Yogendra Singh against five persons namely Ramesh Dubey, Amit Dubey, Suresh Dubey, Babloo Dubey and Ramashraya Chaurasiya @ Mulla alleging therein that his elder brother Tejveer Singh had two days back decided to purchase a cow of Rs.50,000/- for which he had given advance of Rs.5,000/-. When he went to the house of Ramashraya Chaurasiya to bring the purchased cow, he told that he has sold the cow to Ramesh Dubey just now and they are taking it and he may do whatever he likes on which he went ahead and tried to stop them and told about it to Ramesh Dubey after which the accused persons started assaulting him and one of them ran and brought a gun and exhorted on which there was a fire on his brother Tejveer Singh and also on him. The other persons resorted to assault by bricks and stones. People had made a video of it. He took his brother to the hospital. He also received injuries. His brother has died. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is argued that a vide of the place of occurrence was recorded which was seen by Vishal Singh who stated that Suresh Dubey is carrying a gun with him and his son Praveen Dubey assaulting with bricks and stones and besides them one person Ranjeet Dubey @ Babloo is standing. The implication of the applicant has surfaced during investigation in which it is stated that he was standing beside Suresh Dubey. It is argued that no overt-act has been assigned to the applicant. It is further argued that investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. Co-accused Praveen Dubey, Bablu Dubey @ Ranjeet and Ramashray Chaurasia alias Mulla have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.4.2025, 16.1.2025 and 20.1.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.2423 of 2025, 41693 of 2024 and 41974 of 2024, copies of the said orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record. It is argued that applicant has one criminal history of Case Crime No.258 of 2024 which has been explained in para no.30 of the affidavit in support of bail application. The applicant is in jail since 6.11.2024.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant has surfaced during investigation. No overt-act has been assigned to the applicant. investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. Co- accused persons have been granted bail.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant-Vinit Dubey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Gaurav Kuls GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad