Allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2023CRLA/10438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed against the rejection of a bail application. The Single Judge enlarged the appellant on bail in a case under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections without expressing an opinion on the merits, citing fundamental rights. The trial was remanded to the Sessions Court with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Aditya Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235672

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10438 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Aditya Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mahmudul Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satyam Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for informant and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 415 of 2023, under Sections 328, 354, 376, 506 of IPC, and Section 3(2)5, 3(1) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the victim is a married lady. The age of the victim is 35 years while the age of the appellant is 18 years. She was a consenting party. She established physical relation at her own accord. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and argued that during her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has consistently corroborated the version of the FIR. The appellant asked the victim to obtain divorce with her first husband and she filed divorce petition.

¶11

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 05.10.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let appellant, Aditya Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The appellant 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.

¶15

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶18

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶19

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient

¶21

cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶22

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Mohit

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwan Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Parmisa and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Noor Saba and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munni @ Pooja @ Pano Vs State of U.P. and Another