Vipin Kumar vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the applicant, Vipin Kumar, is entitled to be released on bail. The reasoning is based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant's contention of false implication and lack of naming in the FIR, and the grant of bail to co-accused on the ground of parity. The Court also considered the applicant's period of detention since June 21, 2019, and his clean criminal record. Reference was made to the Apex Court's dictum in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The operative direction is to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to ten specified conditions aimed at ensuring his cooperation with the trial and preventing any misuse of liberty.

Facts

This judgment concerns a bail application filed by Vipin Kumar, the applicant, who is accused in Case Crime No. 1208 of 2018. The charges include offenses under the Indian Penal Code (sections 420, 466, 468, 120-B) and section 132 of the CGST Act. The applicant has been in jail since June 21, 2019. He contends he was falsely implicated and not named in the First Information Report (FIR). He also argues for parity, noting that co-accused Santendra Kumar and Nitin Bansal were granted bail on April 17, 2020, and May 21, 2020, respectively. The applicant claims to have no prior criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Vipin Kumar, is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law. The applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated and was not named in the FIR. He further contended that parity should be granted as co-accused Santendra Kumar and Nitin Bansal have already been enlarged on bail. The applicant also highlighted his prolonged incarceration since June 21, 2019, and the absence of any criminal history. The State (opposite party), through the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), opposed the bail prayer but could not dispute the factual submissions made by the applicant's counsel.