Vikrant Chaudhary vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 983

SANDEEP MEHTA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Vikrant Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jugul Kishor Gupta, AOR, Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, Adv., Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR, Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv., Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv., Mr. Nagendra Singh, Adv., Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Naman Raj Singh, Adv., M/s. Y Maheswari & Co., AOR

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court's order granting bail to the accused in a criminal case, affirming that the absence of the accused's name in the FIR and witness statements, along with reliance on confessional statements, does not constitute an error warranting intervention [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!) .
The petitioner, who is the complainant, challenged the bail order, but the Court found no error or infirmity in the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused, as the order was based on the facts and law applicable to the case (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the accused's non-inclusion in the FIR and eyewitness statements, when bail is granted based on confessional statements, does not automatically imply an error, and such decisions are within the judicial discretion of the High Court (!) (!) .
The special leave petitions filed by the complainant were dismissed as they lacked merit, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.

Table of Content
1. complaint details and absence of names in fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. no error in granting bail. (Para 4)
3. dismissal of special leave petitions. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER :

1. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record.

2. The petitioner is the complainant of the case. He is before us by way of this special leave petition assailing the order dated 4th April, 2025 passed by the High Court of Allahabad granting bail to the accused Sandeep @ Tony (respondent No.2 in SLP(Crl.) No.8764 of 2025) and the accused Deepak (respondent No.2 in SLP(Crl.) No.8765 of 2025) in connection with case Crime No. 23/25 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 Sandeep @ Tony and Deepak in SLP(Crl.) No.8764 of 2025 and SLP(Crl.) No.8765 of 2025 respectively, were neither named in the FIR nor in the statements of the eye witnesses recorded during the course of the investigation. The respondents Sandeep @ Tony and Deepak have been arraigned in the case on the basis of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document