Allahabad High Court
VINAY JAIN @ KIKKI JAINversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail despite the allegations and prior cases, as there is no substantive evidence of extortion and he has a consistent bail record.
Summary
Vinay Jain was arrested in Crime No. 449 of 2025 under IPC sections 308(5) and 351(2) for alleged extortion. The informant claimed the applicant threatened him but admitted no money was received. The applicant has six other criminal cases, three of which are concurrent with the present case, and he has been on bail in all of them, but has been in jail since 11‑12‑2025. The court examined whether the allegations and the applicant’s criminal history warranted denial of bail. Finding no substantive evidence of extortion and noting the applicant’s consistent bail history, the court granted bail with a personal bond, two sureties and specific conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under IPC sections 308(5) and 351(2) in view of the extortion allegation and his prior criminal history
- Whether the applicant’s prior bail record and lack of evidence of money received affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308(5), 351(2)
Subjects
- bail
- extortion
- criminal history
- IPC 308
- IPC 351
- high court
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9567 of 2026
Vinay Jain @ Kikki Jain
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjali Singh Tomer, Gaurav Singh Tomar,
Inder Pal Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sandeep Tripathi
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Ms. Anjali Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sandeep
Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kunwar Tejendra Bahadur, learned
AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 449 of 2025, under Sections 308(5) & 351 (2) BNS, Police Station
Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, there is allegation of
extortion against the applicant but except allegation admittedly informant did not give
any money to the applicant.
4. She further submitted that actually informant is inimical with the applicant and
therefore, he implicated the applicant in the present matter.
5. She further submitted that however apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of six other cases but out of six cases in three cases simultaneously he
has been made accused alongwith present matter and in all the cases he is on bail.
6. She further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 11.12.2025.
7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is hardened criminal and he used to extort
money from innocent people but they fairly conceded except the allegation of
threatening there is neither any evidence nor allegation that informant paid any money
to the applicant.
8. They also could not dispute the fact that in all the previous cases applicant is on bail
and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 11.12.2025.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
BAIL No. 9567 of 2026
2
10. However, there is allegation of extortion against the applicant but admittedly
informant did not give any money to the applicant with regard to the threat of
extortion given by applicant to him.
11. Further, it appears apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history
of six other cases but it reflects in three cases alongwith the present case he has been
made accused and in all the cases including three previous criminal history, applicant
is on bail.
12. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 11.12.2025.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in
my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant-Vinay Jain @ Kikki Jain, 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.
16. 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.
17. 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 7, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…