Rohit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34008

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1629 of 2024

Applicant :- Rohit Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Arpan Prakash Srivastava,Jyoti Rawat,Prasoon Srivastava,Ram Samujh Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Singh,Shradha

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent as well as Ms. Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.400 of 2023, under Sections 34, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 IPC, relating to Police Station No.Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is stated that the applicant as well as the complainant they are neighbours; inasmuch as the family of the applicant resides on the ground floor whereas the family of the complainant is on the first floor.

¶9

As per the averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that at from 9.30 a.m. on 13.09.2023 an altercation took place as the complainant had raised a protest regarding the fuel being stolen from the vehicle of the complainant parked on the ground floor and some damage to the indicators. It is in this context that the applicant and the other co-accused who are all related started assaulting the complainant so much so that a brick was used to repeatedly hit the complainant on his head. The father of the complainant tried to intervene even

¶10

he was badly beaten thereafter with the intervention of the neighbours the matter was subdued.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that an exaggerated version of a heated argument has been recorded in the FIR. The FIR in question as a ground; inasmuch as the complainant used to tease the sister of the applicant and raising the same a protest the scufÒe was triggered. It is also pointed out that from the medical report, there is no serious injury which has been caused. Thus, the contention that a brick was used repeatedly hit on the head was not corroborated. All the injuries are said to be simple in nature despite a CT Scan having done including an x-ray yet it did not corroborate the injuries as sought to be made out in the FIR.

¶12

It is further stated that the entire male members of the family have been in jail since 14.09.2023 and the applicant does not have any criminal history. In this view of the matter, the applicant be enlarged on bail especially when the chargesheet has been filed and there is no apprehension that the applicant would flee justice as he has his permanent residence and is living with his family nor there can be any apprehension for tampering with any evidence or influencing the any witness.

¶13

While opposing the aforesaid bail application the counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. stated that in so far as the incident is concerned that stands corroborated by the injury report. However, they could not dispute the fact that the manner in which the injury occurred that is not substantiated, prima facie , from the report. On the basis of the statement of doctor recorded in the case diary which was made available by the learned A.G.A. for perusal of the Court also does not substantiate the gravity of the injury as said to be made out in the FIR and it is also not disputed that the chargesheet has been filed in the matter.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the

¶15

nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Rohit Verma involved in FIR/Case Crime No.400 of 2023, under Sections 34, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 IPC, relating to Police Station No.Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶18

(i) The applicant 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 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.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.5.2024 ank

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alluri Vishnu Varma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajbahadur Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shashank Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P.Lko.

Dhanjay Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Deputy Commissioner (P) Air Custom C.C.S.I. Airport Lko.

Hosala Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.