Mohd. Vikki vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of Mohd. Vikki. The Court considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by both parties, and the nature of the offense. It also took into account the evidence, the complicity of the accused, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, cooperating with the trial, and not indulging in criminal activity. Breach of these conditions would be grounds for cancellation of bail.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Mohd. Vikki. The applicant was arrested in connection with Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, registered under Sections 380, 457, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The FIR alleged that on the intervening night of March 4/5, 2022, unknown persons robbed a shop, stealing Rs. 3.40 lacs, a license, GST documents, and an Aadhaar Card. The applicant has been in jail since March 14, 2022. The prosecution claims the applicant was identified in CCTV footage and that looted articles were recovered from his possession.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, registered under Sections 380, 457, 411 I.P.C. (a question of mixed law and fact turning on the evidence and the applicant's complicity). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. No incriminating articles were recovered from the applicant's direct possession, and the alleged Aadhaar Card was found in a car. The applicant was not named in the FIR, and no identification parade was conducted. The applicant has a criminal history of three cases, which were explained. The applicant has been incarcerated since March 14, 2022, and will cooperate with the trial if released. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail, stating that the applicant was identified in CCTV footage and looted articles were recovered from his possession, thus disentitling him to bail.