Allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023BAIL/55301/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant, Dinesh Verma, in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. The court relied on counsel's submissions regarding potential misuse of the POCSO Act and lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence and to appear before the trial court.

Dinesh Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55301 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raksha Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 187 of 2022 at Police StationKotwali Dehat, District- Banda, under Sections 363, 366 IPC Section 7/8 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 07.10.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 21.11.2022.

¶7

The following arguments made by Shri Ram Raksha Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶8

(1). The FIR is a result of parental opposition to the relationship of the applicant with the victim.

¶9

(2). The victim was falsely depicted as a minor only to implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of POCSO Act and cause

¶10

his imprisonment.

¶11

(3). The victim is in fact a major.

¶12

(4). Her school certificate depicts her age as 17 years 11 months.

¶13

(5). The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant.

¶14

(6). She has also asserted that she got married to him of her own volition.

¶15

(7). No allegation of abduction, forceful assault or inappropriate behaviour has been made against the applicant by the victim.

¶16

(8). Prosecution evidence doe snot connect the applicant with the offence.

¶17

(9). Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶18

(10). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶19

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

¶20

allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant- Dinesh Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Pravin

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Jubair Ahmad @ Sadab Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bajrangi Lal Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Khandelwal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shankar Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P.