Allowed

Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma v. State of U.P. through the secretary Home DepT.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022/1095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application seeks release for Arvind Kumar Verma charged under Section 302 IPC. The court granted bail considering allegations of false implication, the bail status of co-accused, and the constitutional mandate of Article 21, despite the serious nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties on conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence and mandating personal presence at court.

Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1095 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through The Secretary Home Dept.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in case crime no.412 of 2020,under Sections 147, 336, 504, 302 I.P.C.,Police-Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submission is that due to enmity, this false and frivolous case has been lodged against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and nor any allegation has been levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. The complicity of the applicant came into light for the first time in the statement of Smt. Arti Soni and Gaurav, who are the injured eye witnesses. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no specific role of inflicting injuries has been assigned to the applicant.It is further argued that in the F.I.R. general allegations have been levelled against all the co-accused persons whereas there is no allegation against the applicant. There is no motive or premeditation to commit such crime.The incident occurred on the spur of moment. It is also submitted that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant under sections 147,336,308,504 I.P.C. but later on it was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. after eight days of the alleged incident the injured succumbed due to the injury. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the offence is not travelled beyond the purview of Section 304 I.P.C. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the cross case was lodged from the side of the applicant, an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.413 of 2020 on the same day under

¶9

Sections 323 and 354 I.P.C. against the complainant side.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the name of the applicant was falsely taken by the injured eye witness only with the intention to defame the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that coaccused/Santosh Kumar Verma who have assigned the role of hitting the deceased by rod and dambul has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2021 in Criminal Bail Application no.14921 of 2021 .

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that other coaccused persons having similar and identical role of hitting the deceased on the head, namely, Sandeep Verma, Ramchandra Lodhi @ Chandrapal and Smt. Guria have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.01.2022, 05.01.22 and 08.02.2022 in Criminal Bail Application Nos.3079 of 2021,8326 of 2021 and 7896 of 2020 respectively .

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, namily, Santosh Kumar Verma, therefore, he is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

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 circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and she is in jail since 13.02.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is eyewitness account of inflicting injury with iron rod against the applicant and the said injury was present on the vital part of the deceased resultant into death of the deceased. The offence is serious in nature. Further submission is that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail and the bail application is

¶15

liable to be rejected.

¶16

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made 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 and also considering the facts that the co-accused, namely, Santosh Kumar Verma, Sandeep Verma and Ramchandra Lodhi @ Chandrapal and Smt. Guria have been granted bail by this Court, as stated above and larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma involved in Case Crime No.412 of 2020 under Sections 147,336,504,302 I.P.C.,Police-Station Madion, District Lucknow be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶19

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶21

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

(5) 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

¶24

of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(6) The applicant shall remain present in person, before the trial court on the date 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 his in accordance with law.

¶26

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of the applicant's bail .

¶29

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶30

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 dk/

¶31

Digitally signed by DEVENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.02.11 14:16:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma v. State of U.P. through the secretary Home DepT.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Verma @ Arvind Verma v. State of U.P. through the secretary Home DepT.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kanchanlata Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guria Vs State of U.P.

Shahnaz Bano @ Simmi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Prabhat Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Rizwan Ali @ Videshi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Ram Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lucknow and Others