Allowed

Akhilesh Kumar Verma v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/2801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for the applicant, who was accused of offences under IPC and POCSO involving a minor. Despite serious allegations, the court held it was a fit case for bail, imposing standard conditions, while reserving judgment on the merits of the accusations.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond, two reliable sureties, and conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and attendance.

Akhilesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Up and 3… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2801 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Akhilesh Kumar Verma under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 66 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Protection of Chidren From Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, registered at Police Station- Raja Talab, DistrictVaranasi during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (POCSO)/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 14.12.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 18.11.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and sister-in-law (Vinita Devi) of the first informant by the mother of the victim stating therein that on 05.10.2021 sister-inlaw of the first informant had sent the applicant to the house of the first informant to fetch her minor daughter in her house, when the first informant went to her maternal house to see her daughter, then her sister-in-law stated that her daughter has enticed away by the applicant and applicant and her daughter have solemnized marriage. It is further alleged that co-accused Vinita Devi admitted that she has helped them in the aforesaid act.

¶8

After lodging the first information report, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 18.11.2021 and on the same day the Investigating Officer produced the victim and as per the report of C.M.O. dated 19.11.2021, the victim has refused to get her internal examination. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 20.11.2021. The applicant was arrested on 19.11.2021.

¶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. As per High School Certificate of the victim, the date of birth of the victim is 01.09.2004 and the age of the victim is 17 years 2 months old on the date of incident. He further contended that the statement of victim does not support the prosecution version and stated that she left her house on her own will and her maternal aunt (Mami) Vineeta Devi and maternal uncle were the persons who got solemnized the marriage of the victim to the applicant, but the applicant never had made physical relationship.

¶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. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(a) The victim is 17 years 2 months old on the date of incident.

¶14

(b) The victim does not support the prosecution version.

¶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.,

¶18

(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.

¶19

Let applicant, Akhilesh 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:

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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 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

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 Ishan

¶33

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.02.14 10:26:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Kumar Verma v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Verma v. State of Up 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

Mundar Lal Vs State of U.P.

Juvenile 'X' through His Father Vs State of Up and Anr.

Akash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahjad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Babu Lall Nishad Vs State of U.P.