Allowed

Om Prakash Verma and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2023ABAIL/9533/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail application filed by Om Prakash Verma and Ramkanti in a case alleging offences under IPC 376. Bail granted on furnishing bond with conditions, emphasizing non-interference with trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants on personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specified behavioral conditions.

Om Prakash Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169417

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9533 of 2023 Applicant :- Om Prakash Verma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Balveer Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Ram Krishna Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶5

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0374 of 2023, under Section 376(2)(n), 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶6

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the informant was agreed to be solemnized with the son of the applicant Vipin Kumar Verma and it was agreed to exchange presents and cash worth Rs. 5 lakhs. In the meantime, the son of the applicant Vipin Kumar Verma is stated to have called the informant several times and is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with her without her consent and later on, he is stated to have even questioned her fidelity and refused to marry her. The applicants are stated to have facilitated the son of the applicant in the said act despite being asked to act upon the agreement entered between the parties for marrying their son to the informant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have the apprehension of their arrest. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that they are the parents of the co-accused person Vipin Kumar Sharma, who has established the corporeal relationship. It is stated that the allegations are false as even the date of agreement to marry has not been mentioned. It is vaguely stated that the said agreement was entered two before the establishment of the said corporeal relationship.

¶8

Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgments of Apex Court passed in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 , wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting marriage cannot be termed as rape.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Om Prakash Verma and Ramkanti in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

ii. that the applicants 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous

¶16

permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Shalini

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash Verma and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Verma and Another 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

Surjeet and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Imran and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Banarasi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Kumar Mishra @ Shiv Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Babita Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others