Vikas Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36814 of 2022

Applicant :- Vikas Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation of enticement of minor girl with intent to marry and commission of offence of rape against the applicant.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The victim as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is aged about 19 years. She has stated that she was being married by her parents to an aged person and therefore she called the applicant and went with him. He was rescued him and she has also married him in temple. She has not made any allegation of abduction and rape against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.06.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

Counsel for the informant, Sri Saqib Meezan, has submitted that the applicant has married the victim and she is residing with the applicant in his home. He has no objection in this case. The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant, Vikas Kumar Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 744 of 2021, under Sections- 363, 366, 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun, 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 14.9.2022 Rohit

¶20

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.15 13:14:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bhura @ Zainuddin @ Sahil Vs State of U.P.

Jitu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sakhawat Vs State of U.P.

Jeetu Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others