Allowed

Arvind Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Dep.Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022/6836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal bail application, noting the dispute appears civil in nature and lacks substantial criminal ingredients, permitting release subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and witness tampering.

Arvind Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Dep.Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6836 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Dep.Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri,Ravi Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brij Mohan Sahai,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Riyaz Ahmad

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri B.N. Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 346 of 2022, under Sections 307, 342, 394, 406, 506, 411 IPC, P.S.- Chinhat, District - Lucknow.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next added that there was certain dispute with the present applicant but present applicant was doing pairvi in the matter and thus he was also named in the FIR. He next added that present applicant is no where beneficiary as he is neither Director nor promoter of the company. He also added that vehicle which was used in the alleged offence is not registered in the name of present applicant and there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter. He also submits that there seems to be certain dispute regarding money transaction in between the parties and the cases are also pending between the informant and the other persons in the court below. He also added that this is the matter pertaining to civil dispute which is being given colour of criminality. He further submits that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 17 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 03.05.2022. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that there are serious allegation against the present applicant and he is named in the FIR and, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant has also supports the version of learned AGA.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it reveals that there are dispute with regard to transaction of certain amount between the parties and it is a civil dispute which is being given colour of criminality by way of lodging FIR; further from perusal of the contents of the FIR that does not supports the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC; further it is also asserted that present applicant has no concerned with the company in question as he is neither Director nor promoter of the company; further so far as the vehicle which is said to be used in the incident is not registered in the name of present applicant; further criminal history of the applicant has been explained aforesaid, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 03.05.2022, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Arvind Verma involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶18

verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 14.11.2022 Ujjawal

¶21

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.11.15 18:50:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Dep.Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Verma v. State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Dep.Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramfer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Hari Bhajan Vs State of Up Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Jaysurya @ Rohit Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vishal Pal @ Goldi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Veer Pratap Singh @ Ruddra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.