Allowed

Gaurav Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024/501/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail of Gaurav Verma charged with murder and related offences. The court noted the delay in implicating the applicant and his clean record, granting release on bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each, subject to standard conditions of attending hearings and not tampering with evidence.

Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13132

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 501 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Gaurav Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 14.07.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the second bail application, after being released, has been listed before this Court by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 20.10.2021.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State; Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶8

3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.381 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P.S. Para, District Lucknow.

¶9

4. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that two named persons and three unnamed persons had caused the offence in question. It was stated that son of the informant had come out on bail in an offence in which it was alleged that he had committed the murder of the brother of the main accused Rajendra Verma and on 17.07.2020 at about 1:30 pm, when the son of the informant was taking her mother on a motorcycle to Chandrodaya Nagar Mod and the informant was going on another motorcycle, and when they crossed the railway crossing, the co-accused Rajendra Verma and Shivam alongwith three unknown persons assaulted the son and the co-accused Rajendra Verma with an intent to kill the son of the informant fired at him. Thereafter, the son of the informant ran after leaving the motorcycle and the accused persons followed him and caused multiple firearm injuries. It was also stated that the informant and his wife chased him when he saw all the accused persons, including the unknown persons, causing firearm injuries on the son of the informant, which resulted in death.

¶10

5. In the light of the first information report, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not named in the FIR. He argues that even as per the FIR version, there was enmity in between the families as allegedly son of the informant had killed the brother of co-accused Rajendra Verma.

¶11

He further argues that the applicant is the brother of co-accused Rajendra Verma and keeping in view the enmity as disclosed in the FIR, the families were known to each other, and still the applicant was not named in the FIR. He further draws my attention to the first statement of the informant where again the applicant was not named. He argues that the name of the applicant ultimately surfaced in the statement which was subsequently recorded after nine days on 29.07.2023 wherein the name of the applicant surfaced. He further argues on the basis of documents on record that even as per the statements of the prosecution recorded during trial, it was stated that the name of the applicant also came in the statement of one witness namely Rajendra Kumar Yadav, who stated that he came to know the name of the applicant at the time of post-mortem and at the time of funeral, however, despite that, the name of the applicant surfaced after nine days.

¶12

6. It is further argued that one of the co-accused namely Rajendra Verma has been denied bail by means of an order dated 24.11.2023. It is brought on record that Shivam Verma, also one of the co-accused, has been denied bail vide order dated 06.02.2024. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history, his name surfaced after about nine days despite the informant coming to know of the name of the applicant on the date of post-mortem. Considering the long enmity in between the families, prima-facie, there is no explanation of not implicating the applicant either at the time of FIR or immediately thereafter, when the name was revealed to the informant or he remembered his name. He argues that on account of enmity, the applicant is being falsely implicated with the offence in question without there being any involvement of the applicant with the offence. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 20.07.2020 and, as such, considering the long period of undertrial detention undergone by the applicant, the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

¶13

7. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application by arguing that the two coaccused have been denied bail by this Court and considering the gravity of the offence wherein a young man was murdered, the present bail application should be rejected.

¶14

8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, what transpires from the record is that the first bail application was rejected by this Court on 14.07.2022 and subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application, eight witnesses including three witnesses of fact, have already been examined. It is also revealed that as many as 24 witnesses are proposed to be examined as per the

¶15

charge-sheet out of which major fact witnesses have already been examined. It is also on record that the fact witness, the father of the victim, had admitted that he had come to know of the name of the applicant at the time of post-mortem and despite that, there is no explanation for implicating the applicant with the offence in question after a delay of about nine days.

¶16

9. Considering the facts that apparently the fact witnesses have already been examined and in their deposition, no specific explanation has been offered with regard to delay in implicating the applicant with the offence in question, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, can have any adverse effect on trial, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶17

10. Let the applicant Gaurav Verma be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶19

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶20

(c) 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

11. The facts as recorded above, were not argued in bail application of co-accused Rajendra Verma and Shivam Verma and the facts of the present case are also slightly different.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.2.2024 nishant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaurav Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

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

Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Piyush Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Irshad @ Chikna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home), U.P. Lucknow

Ram Sukh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Srikeshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Vijay Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others