Facts of the Case

The present bail application was filed by Mohd. Vikki seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, registered under Sections 380, 457 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

According to the FIR, during the intervening night of 4/5 March 2022, unidentified persons allegedly committed theft by breaking into the informant's shop and stole approximately ₹3.40 lakhs in cash, along with the GST licence, GST-related documents and Aadhaar Card of the informant.

The applicant was subsequently arrested, and the prosecution alleged that he was identified through CCTV footage and that stolen articles were recovered from his possession. The applicant approached the High Court seeking bail during the pendency of the trial.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial under Sections 380, 457 and 411 IPC.
  2. Whether the recovery alleged by the prosecution sufficiently connected the applicant with the alleged offence.
  3. Whether the facts and circumstances justified grant of bail in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The applicant advanced the following submissions before the Court:

  • He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
  • His name does not appear in the FIR.
  • No incriminating article mentioned in the FIR was recovered from his personal possession.
  • The recovery memo only records recovery of an Aadhaar Card from a Honda Amaze car, which does not establish his involvement in the alleged offence.
  • No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish his identity.
  • Although he has criminal history of three cases, the same has been duly explained in the bail affidavit.
  • He has remained in judicial custody since 14.03.2022.
  • He undertook that, if released on bail, he would cooperate with the trial and would not misuse the liberty granted by the Court.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail application and submitted that:

  • The applicant was identified through CCTV footage.
  • Looted articles were recovered from his possession.
  • Considering the evidence collected during investigation, the applicant was not entitled to be released on bail.

 

Court Order / Findings

After considering the submissions of both parties, the material available on record, the nature of allegations, evidence and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Allahabad High Court observed that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail.

The Court also took note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Another regarding the principles governing grant of bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to verification of the sureties.

 

Important Clarification

  • Mere opposition by the prosecution is not by itself sufficient to deny bail when the Court is satisfied that the overall circumstances justify release.
  • The Court specifically refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal case.
  • The order reiterates the principles governing grant of bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Another.
  • Grant of bail does not amount to acquittal, and the criminal trial shall proceed independently.

 

Sections Involved

  • Section 380, Indian Penal Code – Theft in dwelling house, etc.
  • Section 457, Indian Penal Code – Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit an offence.
  • Section 411, Indian Penal Code – Dishonestly receiving stolen property.

 


Link to download the order-https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783933167_200compressed.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.