Allahabad High Court

VINEETversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vineet, who was arrested on 22 January 2026 in connection with an extortion case (Crime No. 27 of 2026) under Sections 308(5) and 61(2) BNS. The applicant's only evidence was a confessional statement to police and the statement of a co‑accused; no other material linked him to the offence. Although Vineet has six prior criminal cases, he is on bail in all of them, and the applicant argued he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The Court, after weighing the limited evidentiary basis and the applicant’s criminal history, concluded that bail was appropriate, subject to standard conditions, and granted the application without commenting on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the only evidence against the accused is a confessional statement and a co‑accused's statement.
Whether the applicant's prior criminal history warrants denial of bail in the present case.
Whether the possibility of false implication affects the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 61(2) BNS
Indian Penal Code — s. 308(5)

Subjects

bail
extortion
confessional statement
criminal history
false implication
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14269 of 2026

Vineet
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saksham Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2026, under Sections 308(5), 61(2) BNS,
Police Station Ghandhi Park, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, FIR of the present case was
lodged against co-accused Yash Thakur and unknown persons with regard to
extortion but during investigation on the basis of statement of co-accused
and confessional statement of applicant before police he has been made
accused in the present matter and except the confessional statement of
applicant and co-accused there is no other evidence against the applicant on
record.

5. He further submits, actually unfortunately apart from the present case
applicant is having criminal history of six other cases, therefore, during
investigation police also implicated the applicant in the present matter. He
further submits, entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in
para-21 of the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application and in all
the cases applicant is on bail.

6. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
22.01.2026.
BAIL No. 14269 of 2026
2

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute
the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.

9. However, as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Yash Thakur,
who was named in the FIR, tried to extort money from informant but except
the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant before
the police it appears, there is no other evidence against applicant on record.

10. Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases
but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and
in all the cases he is on bail and considering his criminal history, at this stage
the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant with regard to false
implication of the applicant in the present matter cannot be ruled out.

11. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.01.2026.

12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant - Vineet be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
BAIL No. 14269 of 2026
3

16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

May 6, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…