Allowed

Ram Sahai Verma v. State of U.P. through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022/71/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment allows a bail application filed by Ram Sahai Verma, accused in a murder case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents and considered the delay in FIR registration and the nature of allegations to conclude the case is fit for bail, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant Ram Sahai Verma on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to be fixed by the Trial Court.

Ram Sahai Verma Vs State of U.P. through… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 71 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Sahai Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Nath Tiwari,Arun Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the accused-applicant/Ram Sahai Verma, Mr. Prachish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Ram Sahai Verma , under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.155 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Khodare, District Gonda during pendency of trial.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 31.10.2021 has been lodged by the father of the deceased against unknown persons stating that on 22.10.2021 in the night his son aged about 18 years disappeared from his house. After making efforts for search of his son, he lodged his missing report on 24.10.2021 and on 31.10.2021 at 23.30 hrs. when Raj Kumar was sowing his paddy crop in his field he felt some bad smell and he informed the first informant and after the search the dead body was found in a sugarcane field.

¶9

After lodging of the first information report an inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on

¶10

1.11.2021 at 6.30 a.m. and concluded at 7.15 a.m. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 1.11.2021 at 4.10 p.m. As per postmortem report cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to ante mortem throttling. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses namely Soniya Verma, Malti Verma and Raj Kumar the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 28.01.2022. The applicant was arrested on 5.11.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged after nine days of the incident as well as after recovering the dead body. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arrested on 5.11.2021 on the basis of information received from police informer.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused applicant further submitted that after the arrest of the present applicant the statements of Raj Kumar, Soniya Verma and Malti Verma have been recorded. It is further submitted that there is no last seen witness of the present case. It is further submitted that the witness Soniya Verma is the real sister of the deceased and her statement has been recorded on 5.11.2021, in which she stated first time that her brother has gone to the house of the present applicant but the first information report has not been lodged against the applicant and the first informant has no knowledge about his missing from 22.10.2021 to 5.11.2021. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2021. The applicant has criminal history of minor offences like voluntarily causing hurt. In one case final report has been submitted and in the other case no

¶13

charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant till today.

¶14

Per contra , learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

After considering the facts of the present case, it prima facie appears that;

¶16

(a) the first information report has been lodged against unknown persons after nine days of incident on 31.10.202;

¶17

(b) the applicant has been arrested on the basis of information received from police informer on 5.11.2021;

¶18

¶19

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶20

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let applicant, Ram Sahai Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

(iv) 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

¶26

present in the trial court.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶28

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

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶30

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶34

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.

¶35

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶36

Order Date :- 21.9.2022 Ram.

¶37

Digitally signed by RAM SINGH Date: 2022.09.23 16:46:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Sahai Verma v. State of U.P. through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sahai Verma v. State of U.P. through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Faruk Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Moorti Verma @ Pooja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Devershi Alias Chanu Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.