Allowed

Narendra Kumar Verma Alias Raj Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023/672/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, the court held that discrepancies regarding the victim's age, the delay in pregnancy disclosure, and multiple similar FIRs lodged against the informant warranted granting bail to the applicant, a first-time offender.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail with two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, not to pressurize witnesses, and to appear on all dates.

Narendra Kumar Verma Alias Raj Verma Vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 672 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Verma Alias Raj Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Rajeev Shukla,Saurabh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned Addl. Government Advocate-I, and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the instant application the applicant Narendra Kumar Verma alias Raj Verma S/o Chandrashekhar Verma seeks bail in Case Crime No. 506 of 2022, under sections 376, 506, I.P.C., P.S. Behta Gokul, District Hardoi.

¶8

This case has been registered on the basis of a first information report dated 2nd of October 2022 on the basis of an application sent by the informant to the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, alleging that during April to May 2021 an unknown person had raped the informant's minor daughter and she delivered a child on 31st of January 2022. The said application alleges that the child was taken away by the UP Police and the victim was admitted to District Hospital, Haryawan for her treatment, but the name of the culprit was not disclosed under threat of safety of the victim and her family members.

¶9

In her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC the victim stated that the applicant raped her on several occasions and other three persons named by her had helped him; that due to repetitive rape she became pregnant and delivered a child; upon

¶10

coming to know of the child-birth the villagers informed the Police and the Police took away the child and she was admitted to the District Hospital.

¶11

In her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC the victim stated that the applicant had raped her about one month, after Holi and he raped her several times. It was further stated that one Vinod had raped her younger sister. She stated that she delivered a child in her hut and nobody from her family came to know about her pregnancy. After the child-birth she had buried the child. She further stated that a land dispute is going on between her and the applicant.

¶12

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the statements of the victim and a copy of the relevant extract of the case-diary, which mentions the date of birth of the victim to be 7th of July 2001 as per her educational testimonials.

¶13

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant stating that the victim is habitual of a lodging F.I.Rs. alleging rape against her and three similar FIRs lodged against the three other accused persons have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Statement of the informant has also been annexed with the Supplementary affidavit and she stated that she had buried the child immediately after his birth.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping and view the facts that although the F.I.R. alleges that the victim is aged about 15 years, as per her educational certificate she is major; that no specific date of the incident has been mentioned in the first information report; that surprisingly the informant claims that have family members

¶15

could not know about her pregnancy till the delivery; that as many as three other F.I.Rs. have been lodged against three other accused persons alleging commission of rape against the victim, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18th of October 2022, without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Narendra Kumar Verma alias Raj Verma S/o Chandrashekhar Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 506 of 2022, under sections 376, 506, I.P.C., P.S. Behta Gokul, District Hardoi, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶23

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 A.Nigam

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Narendra Kumar Verma Alias Raj Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Verma Alias Raj Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jane Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Ram Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Navjot Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Bhusaili Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Golu Alias Raunak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others