Allowed¶11

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

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2022BAIL/40911/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grant of bail; Allahabad High Court; single judge Piyush Agrawal; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40911 of 2022; Case Crime No. 143/2022; Police Station Dullahpur, District Ghazipur; Sections 354Kha, 504, 506, 452 IPC; Sections 7/8 POCSO Act; applicant Anuj Verma / Anuj Varma; in jail since 22.07.2022; FIR delay of two days; bail conditions referencing Section 229-A IPC, Section 82 Cr.P.C., Section 174-A IPC, Section 313 Cr.P.C.; decided 31.10.2022; no opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant in Case Crime No. 143/2022 on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount, subject to the enumerated conditions regarding trial attendance and consequences of default; violation may result in cancellation of bail. ¶11

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Anuj Verma, accused in Case Crime No. 143/2022 (Sections 354Kha, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Dullahpur, District Ghazipur), should be enlarged on bail.

¶7

Court's answer

The court found it a fit case for granting bail while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The applicant (named 'Anuj Varma' in the operative order) was directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 143/2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, default treatable as abuse of bail liberty; (ii) presence before the trial court on each date personally or through counsel, absence actionable under Section 229-A IPC; (iii) upon proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and failure to appear, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC; (iv) personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; any violation may lead to cancellation of bail.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Grant of. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Piyush Agrawal, J.; Order Date 31.10.2022) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40911 of 2022 and directed release of applicant Anuj Verma (styled 'Anuj Varma' in the release order) on bail in Case Crime No. 143/2022, Police Station Dullahpur, District Ghazipur, under Sections 354Kha, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount. Conditions imposed: (i) undertaking not to seek adjournment when witnesses are present, default treatable as abuse of bail liberty; (ii) presence before the trial court on each date personally or through counsel, absence actionable under Section 229-A IPC; (iii) upon proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and failure to appear, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC; (iv) personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; violation may result in cancellation of bail. Bail allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits. Counsel for applicant had submitted: FIR lodged after two days' delay without explanation; victim declined medical examination on parcha dated 22.07.2022; medical report does not support FIR allegations; no previous criminal history; applicant in jail since 22.07.2022.

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40911 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anuj Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bed Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Chauhan,Shyama Charan Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and learned counsel for the informant, and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 143/2022, under Sections 354Kha, 504, 506, 452 IPC and sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Dullahpur, District - Ghazipur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that the FIR was lodged after a delay of two days without there being any plausible explanation for the same; the victim has denied for her medical examination on parcha dated 22.07.2022; the medical report does not support the allegation made in the FIR; the applicant has no previous criminal history. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 22.07.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶11

Let applicant, namely, Anuj Varma, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the

¶13

applicant 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

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure the applicant's 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 the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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 the applicant in accordance with law.

¶17

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 31.10.2022 Amit Mishra

¶19

(Piyush Agrawal,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.10.31 14:21:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Furkan Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Prajapati Vs State Of Up through its principal secretary home.

Smt. Shivanshi Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Arisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sundravati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babu Lal Vs State of U.P.