Allowed

Hariom Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/13755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to Hariom Verma, accused of attempting to commit unnatural acts against a minor under POCSO and IPC 377. Court found it in applicant's interest to grant bail after considering the flawed victim statement and provided standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

Hariom Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13755 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Hariom Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Anupam Anand, learned A.G.A. for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served notices of the bail application upon the the victim as well as the CWC. Form A and Form B are also available in the record.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.332 of 2021 at Police Station-Nebuwa Naurangiya DistrictKushinagar under Section 377 IPC and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2022.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kushinagar at Padrona on 03.02.2022.

¶8

Shri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely

¶9

implicated in the instant case. The applicant is the father of the victim. The son of the applicant went missing and the applicant promptly lodged the FIR fearing that his son may have been abducted and faced threat to his life. The son of the applicant was in the illegal custody of his relative who is having a land dispute with the applicant. The victim was tutored and under fear of the abductor made a statement against his father. The applicant did not commit any unnatural act with the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and contends that the same has no bearing on the instant case.

¶10

Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned brief holder does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶11

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant-Hariom Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount

¶14

to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

¶21

Nadeem

¶22

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.05.30 11:23:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh @ Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs the Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Lodha @ Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Dubey @ Golu Dubey Vs State of U.P.