Allowed

Amarnath Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022BAIL/26659/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of an applicant charged with rape and threats, citing the long-term incarceration of the applicant and overcrowding in jails alongside the legal principle that undertrials should not be detained indefinitely pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Amarnath Verma released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of presence and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26659 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Amarnath Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Datta Tiwari,Anjani Kumar Singh,Baijant Kumar Mishra,Chandan Singh,Sher Singh,Yogendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sher Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation of commission of rape and extending threats to the prosecutrix against the applicant.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix willingly married the applicant and thereafter lived with him for nine months and thereafter some dispute took place between them and she left the applicant and has lodged the false FIR against him. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the victim has admitted in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that she was abducted on 06.02.2020 thereafter the applicant forcibly married her in a temple. He took her photographs of marriage and thereafter committed the alleged offence. He also made incriminating video of the aforesaid offence and sent it to the place where her marriage was being fixed.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the implication of the applicant is false. Subsequently the investigating officer has not found any evidence to implicate the applicant under Section 67(A) of I.T. Act in the charge sheet submitted against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case after marriage with the prosecutrix. The applicant is in jail since 14.03.2021 and has criminal history of one case.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced

¶11

herein below as follows :-

¶12

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Amarnath Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 185 of 2021, under Sections- 376, 506 IPC and Section 67(A) of I.T. Act, Police Station- Kasya, District- Kushi Nagar, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(v) 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. 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 him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.9.2022 Rohit

¶23

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.22 18:03:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amarnath Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath 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

Kamal Lalvani @ Karan Vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Zahid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu @ Sri Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nandan Singh Vs State of U.P and Another