Allowed

Mahendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 May 2022BAIL/10765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail applicant sought release in a Section 376 IPC case pending trial. Court found prima facie that delay in FIR was not fatal and granted bail with conditions including bond, sureties, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions including non-tampering with witnesses.

Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10765 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Padmaker Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ram Adhar, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Mahendra Kumar Verma under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 313, 323, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Fajalganj, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Incharge Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 14.2.2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 8.11.2021 has been lodged by the victim against the applicant stating therein that in the year 2007, relative of the victim namely, Uma Shankar Tiwari came to her house and brought the applicant with him and introduced the applicant to the victim. After that the victim has made friendship with the present applicant and the applicant on false pretext of marriage made physical relation with her. The applicant and family members of the applicant have identified the victim as wife of the present applicant and they have visited the house of the present victim. The applicant has took Rs. 2,70,000/- from the victim by a cheque in the marriage of his sister, which has not been returned till today. During the course of time, the applicant has made physical relation with the victim due to which she got pregnant 4-5 times and the applicant aborted the child again and again. After that the applicant has given some ornaments to the victim, which was taken by the applicant in the marriage of his sister. After that in April 2021, the applicant blocked her phone. On 28.4.2021, 30.4.2021 and 30.9.2021, he committed marpeet and made physical relation with the victim. On 10.10.2021 victim informed that the applicant has solemnized marriage with another girl.

¶8

After registering the crime, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9.11.2021. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 11.11.2021. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12.11.2021. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 11.1.2022. The applicant was arrested on 30.12.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per allegation of first information report, the victim has made friendship with the applicant in the year 2007 and the first information report has been lodged after 14 years on 8.11.2021. The only allegation against the applicant is that he made physical relation with the victim on false pretext of marriage. The victim was consenting party. It is further submitted that the first informant has been introduced by Smt. Anju to the father of the applicant and on the request of Anju, the applicant and his family have helped the first informant on several occasions and paid Rs. 4,00,000/-. When the applicant demanded his money back, the behaviour of the first informant suddenly changed and she denied to refund the money of the applicant. The applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against the victim and there other persons on 9.11.2021 before the court concerned.

¶10

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

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

¶13

(a) The victim has made friendship with the applicant in the year 2007 and the first information report has been lodged after 14 years on 8.11.2021;

¶14

(b) The allegation against the applicant is that he has made physical relation with the victim on false pretext of marriage;

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Let applicant, Mahendra Kumar 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:

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶23

when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 T. Sinha

¶32

Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.05.27 09:41:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Meena Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dhamandi Vs State of U.P.

Aman Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Roshan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Vs State of U.P.