Allowed

Sonam Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/19068/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court considered the applicant's claim of innocence and parity with co-accused already released. Weighing submissions, evidence nature, and detention period, the court granted bail on furnishing sureties subject to strict appearance conditions to prevent abuse of liberty and ensure trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Application granted; applicant released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties, adherence to strict attendance and procedural conditions.

Sonam Verma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19068 of 2021 Applicant :- Sonam Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court, is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.570 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 409, 411, 120-B IPC, Police Station PhaseIII, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶6

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the impugned first information report and also the bail rejection order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the Court to the bail order passed with regard to co-accused Aashish Joshi and Ankur @ Sonu Verma @ Chhotu @ Ajay Sharma by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.182, 25269 of 2021, on 30.06.2021 and 06.09.2021. He further submits that another co-accused Manish Kumar Dahiya, director of the company, has also been granted bail by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.08.2021. He further submits that the case of the accused has no substantial difference with that of the co-accused who has already been released on bail, and therefore, on principles of parity also the accused should be released on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The applicant is having criminal history of 9 cases in which she is on bail. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made

¶10

at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant-Sonam Verma, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

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

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 her in accordance with law.

¶16

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.12.2021/Ajeet

Sonam Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonam Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Vs State of U.P.

Karan Urf Babloo Urf Chiranji Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hradesh Rai Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Ramgopal Vs State of U.P.