Allahabad High Court

ANUJ @ VINOD JATAV @ VINODversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered bail application No. 35494 of 2025 filed by Anuj @ Vinod Jatav @ Vinod, who was arrested in Crime No. 235 of 2024 under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that no material had been recovered from him, and that he had no prior convictions, being on bail in four other cases. The State opposed the bail, but the court, after reviewing the record and the nature of the allegations, decided that the case was suitable for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. The court ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and two reliable sureties, imposing conditions such as personal appearance at trial, no adjournment seeking, and no travel abroad without permission. Violation of any condition would be treated as misuse of bail and could lead to cancellation.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under Sections 420 and 34 IPC where the accused claims false implication.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or other misuse of liberty.
Whether the conditions imposed by the court are appropriate to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 229-A, 313, 82
Indian Penal Code — s. 174-A, 34, 420

Subjects

bail
false implication
IPC Section 420
IPC Section 34
CrPC Section 229-A
CrPC Section 82
CrPC Section 313
sureties
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35494 of 2025

Anuj @ Vinod Jatav @ Vinod
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrendra Nath Rai, Hemant Shukla,
Manish Kumar, Rishabh Higgins
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail
in Case Crime No. 235 of 2024, under Sections 420, 34 IPC, Police
Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further
submitted that the first information report dated 13.09.2024 has been
lodged by the informant against the applicant and other co-accused in the
aforesaid case crime. It is further submitted that all the allegation made in
the FIR is totally against the co-accused but on the basis of suspicion
informant has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. Nothing
has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Investigating
Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant but till date
charge has not framed. The criminal history of four cases have been
explained in paragraph no.9 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application and in all the case applicant is on bail. It is also submitted that
there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee
from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and
the applicant is in jail since 19.10.2024, and the possibility of conclusion
of trial in near future is very bleak.
BAIL No. 35494 of 2025
2

4. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the
record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind and without
expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case
for granting bail.

6. Let applicant namely- Anuj @ Vinod Jatav @ Vinod, be released on
bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond
and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in
order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in
such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against
him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal
Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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 him in accordance with law.
BAIL No. 35494 of 2025
3

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court concerned.

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and
learned Court concerned will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the
matter regarding cancellation of bail.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 5, 2026
SFH

Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHIM HUSAIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…