Vinay vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The reasoning was based on the applicant's statement that he would cooperate with the trial and the fact that he was previously on bail. The Court considered the circumstances leading to the non-bailable warrants and found them to be mitigated by the applicant's willingness to participate in the trial. The principle derived is that an applicant previously enlarged on bail, who fails to appear due to circumstances like seeking employment, and expresses willingness to cooperate, may be granted bail, subject to conditions. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a fresh personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 30,000/- each, with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

Facts

The applicant, Vinay, sought bail in a case involving GST No. 14 of 2016, stemming from case crime no. 165 of 2014 under sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant had previously been enlarged on bail on November 13, 2014. However, due to leaving the state for employment, he failed to appear in the trial court, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The applicant's counsel submitted that he is prepared to cooperate with the trial and cited a similar bail order for one Imran @ Ismile Khan.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering his previous enlargement on bail, subsequent non-appearance due to employment, and willingness to cooperate with the trial, as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was previously granted bail and his non-appearance was due to seeking livelihood outside the state. He expressed the applicant's readiness to cooperate with the trial proceedings and pointed to a precedent where a similar applicant was granted bail. Arguments for the State: The learned AGA did not record any specific arguments against the bail application in the judgment.