Allowed

Virendra Maurya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023BAIL/858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Virendra Maurya, who was accused of rape and criminal intimidation. The court noted allegations of false implication motivated by money disputes but approved release subject to stringent conditions to ensure attendance and prevent tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail requiring a personal bond and two heavy sureties with conditions to ensure attendance and prevent tampering.

Virendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 858 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Virendra Maurya , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 407 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Nabua Naurangiya, District- Kushinagar.

¶7

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Int he present case FIR has been lodged in pursuance of the application filed under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in 2018 after three years of the incident which took place Bhav Nagar at Gujrat 26.1.2015 and thereafter the victim came at her village. In the meantime the victim has not stated anything about the incident to her husband. The victim of the present case is 38 years and having two children. The applicant and victim belong to same district and their villages are situated, the victim has taken some money by the applicant and on demand, she refused to return the money and filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. sta making false allegation against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.11.2022 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Virendra Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 10.2.2023

¶20

RPD

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Maurya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Maurya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Monish @ Mohnishkant Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shamim Shekh Vs State of U.P.

Bharti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Alias Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.