Allowed

Sudheer Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2022/10338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Sudheer Kumar Verma in a POCSO-related case. The court found no immediate evidence against the applicant and viewed his detention as unjustified, observing he is a student whose career is at stake.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with specific conditions.

Sudheer Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10338 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sudheer Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Singh,Sanjay Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Sagar

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit tendered today by Sri Upendra Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Upendra Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2022, under Sections 363,366,368,376,306,309 IPC, 3/4 and 16/17 POCSO Act and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is alleged that the daughter of the complainant aged about 15 years was student of Class- X in Rani Laxmibai Memoraial School. On 29.03.2022 at around 8.30 A.M., the complainant left his daughter to the school, however, when he went to pick her up at 3.30 P.M. from the school, his daughter was not present in the school and whereabouts of the daughter of the complainant could not be found. From CCTV footage of the area, the daughter was seen sitting on the staircase of Dental Clinic near Tedhipullia, Lucknow. At the same time, two persons, namely, Harshvardhan and Krishna Gupta came on Scooty No.UP32 KB-2668 and got the daughter of the complainant on Scooty and took her away. The complainant apprehended that these persons might commit some offence with his daughter. On this information, the F.I.R. in question came to be registered under Section 363 and 366 IPC at Police Station Vikas Nagar, Lucknow- North (Commissionerate Lucknow).

¶9

It is submitted on behalf of the accused-applicant that

¶10

accused-applicant was not named in the F.I.R. It has also been submitted that the daughter of the complainant was in love relationship with the co-accused-Ranjeet Trivedi. They used to chat with each other on Instagram. On Instagram , there is a profile photo of daughter of the complainant along with Ranjeet Trivedi. The daughter of the complainant went with Ranjeet Trivedi on the date of incident. When after lodging the information, the police put pressure, the daughter of the complainant and Ranjeet Trivedi realized that they would be caught and it was not possible for them to continue with the love relationship, they attempted to commit suicide by coming before the train. Both of them got seriously injured and were referred to Trauma Centre, Lucknow where complainant's daughter died on 07.04.2022. When Ranjeet Trivedi, co-accused got recovered from injuries, he was sent to Lucknow District Jail.

¶11

It is further submitted that the complainant was not happy with the relationship of his daughter with coaccused Ranjeet Trivedi. He would forbid his daughter for having any relationship with Ranjeet Trivedi. However, it appears that the deceased, daughter of the complainant was in deep love with co-accused Ranjeet Trivedi. Several photographs have been uploaded by her with Ranjeet Trivedi and posted on Instagram and Facebook.The accused- applicant is a friend of Ranjeet Trivedi. When Ranjneet Trivedi brought the deceased daughter of the complainant to his room, the landlord did not permit him to live with the daughter of the complainant in the house, and they were asked to leave the place.

¶12

The only allegation against the accused applicant is that he gave shelter to his friend Ranjeet Trivedi and arranged for their food etc. It is submitted that the accused-applicant has no role in commission of any offence for which he has been in jail since 25.06.2022.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has also submitted that the co-accused Harshvardhan and Krishna Gupta, who were named in the F.I.R. have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court itself.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that even if the prosecution story is believed, no offence is made out against the accused applicant, and he has been falsely implicated. He is a student and his whole career is at stake. The daughter of the complainant had committed suicide because of the complainant himself as he was

¶15

totally against the relationship of his daughter with the coaccused Ranjeet Trivedi.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate have opposed the bail application. They are not in a position to say that how the accusedapplicant has abetted suicide or what is the evidence to suggest that the accused-applicant had raped the deceased/ the daughter of the complainant.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case , this Court is of the view that accused-applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Let applicant Sudheer Kumar Verma be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him

¶23

in accordance with law.

¶24

(Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 20.12.2022 dk/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudheer Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

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

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.and Others

Deepraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kranti Devi Alias Kanti Devi W/O Rajesh Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Smt. Badrunnisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Deepak Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and 3 Others