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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35150

Court No. - 33

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4794 of 2024

Applicant :- Kamlawti Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

The instant application is being heard through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant along with her husband Suresh Chandra Verma in collusion with other co-accused persons, Ghanshyam Verma, Balwant Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh is stated to have duped the first informant to the tune of Rs.93,75,000/- on the pretext that he shall be awarded work in their company, namely, M/s R.S. Associates and Sons which is a drinking water unit.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. She has been nominated in the FIR on the basis of being the wife of main accused person Suresh Chandra Verma. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 33 lakhs in all is stated to have been transferred to the account of the applicant. She had acted at the behest of her husband Suresh Chandra Verma as she is a homemaker and she has nothing to do with the alleged business. In all twelve cases have been foisted upon her and she has been enlarged on bail in five of the said cases. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC

¶11

648 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶12

It is next stated that the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the case of her husband Suresh Chandra Verma, who is the main accused person in the instant case. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.01.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, learned AGA has stated that the case of the applicant may be distinguished with the main accused Suresh Chandra Verma.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed . The case of the applicant stands distinguished with the case of co-accused Suresh Chandra Verma.

¶15

Let the applicant- Kamlawti Verma, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶16

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

iv. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

v. The applicant 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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date:- 7.5.2024 Siddhant

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlawti 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guddan vs State of U.P.

Riyasat Ali @ Riyasat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjay Tiwari @ Sunny Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko

Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.