Allowed

Arun Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022BAIL/8278/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application for Arun Kumar Verma charged under various IPC sections for causing grievous injury. Court found allegations general with no specific role assigned, applicant lacked criminal history, and incarceration was prolonged due to pandemic overcrowding. Bail granted on undertaking not to tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Releasing applicant on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties without remaining in judicial custody.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8278 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anup Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Arun Kumar Verma for enlarging him on bail in S.T No. 21 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.279 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342, 427, 307 I.P.C, registered at Police StationBishunpur, District- Kushinagar.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 21.1.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Smt. Urmila Devi w/o Ashok Gupta before P.S. Bishunpur, District Kushinagar, in the above noted sections on 14.12.2020 against the applicant and four nominated accused with an allegation that on the fateful day i.e, 8.12.2020, the applicant called son of the complainant and thereafter administered beating, pursuant whereto he received grievous injury. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court at page-35, which happens to be the statement of the injured, wherein the injured has come up with the stand that the injured was administered beating by the co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question. The allegations so contained in the FIR as well as in the statement of the complainant under Section 161 CrPC are general in nature and no specific role has been sought to be assigned to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that FIR has been lodged after 6 days and the applicant does not possess any criminal history and in this regard learned counsel for the applicant has referred to paragraph-20 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail

¶9

since 18.11.2021. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed offence, that’s why his name finds place in the FIR and further the fact that the injuries so sustained by the injured are grievous in nature and merely because general allegations have been leveled and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant cannot be a ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as only general and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant, he does not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 18.11.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation ( Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Arun Kumar Verma involved in aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶15

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.3.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶23

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.09 12:16:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun Kumar Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar 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

Raghvendra Singh Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Ahirwar Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Nusrat Jahan Vs State of U.P.

Veeri Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.