Judge allowed bail to Kiran Chandra Verma in a bomb blast murder case. The court found it a fit case considering the severity of punishment, totality of facts, and complicity issues.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each on furnishing satisfaction to the magistrate/court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48003 of 2018
Applicant :- Kiran Chandra Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Viveka Nand Rai
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.N. Rai, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated due to property dispute and enmity; that as per averments made in FIR, in the night of 29.08.2018 at about 01:00 p.m., a bomb was blasted in the veranda of Lalji Yadav resulting in grievous head injuries to Lalji Yadav and Ajai Yadav beheading their heads, and resulting in their death on the spot; that first informant alleges that by the time he reached with other villagers, miscreants had fled away; that it has also been mentioned in FIR, that deceased was having property dispute with applicant and his brothers were pressurizing him for compromise in lieu of Rs. 2 lakhs and had also threatened him of life; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that applicant neither made any bomb blast in the house of deceased nor had any reason or motive to commit such bomb blast; that it is also absolutely wrong to say that applicant entered into any criminal conspiracy with co-accused Munnilal Yadav and Sonu or hired them for committing bomb blast in question; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from applicant; that applicant was picked from his shop on 29.08.2018, and his arrest has been falsely shown as on 03.09.2018; that applicant had no property dispute with deceased rather the property dispute of deceased was with applicant's brother and co-accused Prateek Varma; that applicant is old and sick person suffering from neuro and asthmatic health problems; that applicant is not resident of village in which, the incident in question did take place rather he resides in Varanasi city, about 25 kilometres away from place of occurrence; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 03.09.2018.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant
vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that bomb blast in question was committed by co-accused Sonu and Munnilal Yadav from whome recovery of electric wire etc., which were used for making the blast by remote control was made; that it is wrong to say that applicant was picked from his shop on 29.08.2018; that applicant is real culprit who caught the bomb blast in question committed in pre-planned manner through hired persons Munnilal Yadav and Sonu;
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment , as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Kiran Chandra Verma be released on bail in Case Crime No. 444 of 2018 under Sections 302, 34, 506, 120-B, 427, 336, 286 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 and 3/4 Explosives Substances Act, 1908, P.S. Chaubeypur District Varanasi on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 17.1.2019 M. ARIF
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail despite allegations of false implication in a bomb blast murder case.
Kiran Chandra Verma
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
