Allowed

Dinesh Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2023ABAIL/5882/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Dinesh Verma in a case involving offences under the IPC and POCSO Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court granted bail conditioned on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each of like amount.

Dinesh Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117481

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5882 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Khan,Javed Husain Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant - Dinesh Verma in connection with Case Crime No.270 of 2020, under Section 174-A IPC, Police Station Girwa, District Banda.

¶8

As the accused applicant was absconding in case crime no.224 of 2020 under Section 376D(A), 504, 506 IPC and Sections 5 (G) and 6 POCSO Act registered against him on 16.10.2020 an F.I.R. under Section 174-A IPC in the present matter was lodged against him on 17.12.2020. After investigation, now charge-sheet has been filed.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail in the parent case having case crime no.224 of 2020 under Section 376D(A), 504, 506 IPC and Sections 5 (G) and 6 POCSO Act. In the present case, the applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation and now charge-sheet has been submitted into the matter. Some other submissions have also been made regarding the maintainability of the F.I.R. of this case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

So far as the maintainability of the F.I.R. is concerned, it is something which is outside the scope of forum of considering the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it

¶13

can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶16

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶17

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶20

(ii) 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 / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 ss

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Brijesh Sonkar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Bhavana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Kumar Gupta and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shadakat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jameel @ Jameera Vs State of U.P.