Allowed

Dileep Verma alias D.K. alias Avinash alias Chaudhary v. The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

Allahabad HC25 May 2024/640/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application by a fugitive under Sections 386 IPC. The judge held that the non-framing of charges after nearly three years violated Article 21 rights as no material linked the applicant to the offence, justifying release on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Case No. 269 of 2018 under Section 386 IPC on personal bonds and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Dileep Verma alias D.K. alias Avinash alias Chaudhary Vs… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

E Court

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40054

¶3

Court No. - 12

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 640 of 2022

¶5

Applicant :- Dileep Verma Alias D.K. Alias Avinash Alias Chaudhary

¶6

Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

¶7

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Awasthi, Pradeep Kumar Maurya, Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶9

1 . Supplementary afÏdavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

3 . In terms of the FIR, allegations were leveled by the informant that he received a call from a phone number, wherein he has disclosed his name as that of the applicant and a demand of Rs.2 Lacs was made, failing which, threats were issued.

¶12

4 . The counsel for the applicant argues that apart from the allegation, there is no material whatsoever to link the applicant with the offence in question. He argues that the applicant is in custody since 02.09.2021 and even the charge has not been framed. He further argues that there is no recovery of any money allegedly paid. He further says that the punishment prescribed for an offence under Section 386 IPC is upto ten years and the applicant has suffered pre-trial detention of almost three years without even the charge being framed. The criminal history of the applicant are duly disclosed in the bail application in para 14, wherein 31 previous criminal history are

¶13

disclosed. The applicant has also been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment, however, he is on bail granted by the appellate Court.

¶14

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer by arguing that in view of the bar created by virtue of Section 437(1)(ii) Cr.P.C., bail may not be granted to the applicant. He further does not deny that even the charge has not been framed in terms of the order-sheet filed by the counsel for the applicant.

¶15

6. Considering the submission made at the Bar, in terms of the second proviso of Section 437(1)(ii) Cr.P.C., the Court is duly empowered to release the person on bail, if it thinks that it is just and proper or for any other special reasons. In the present case, three years have been elapsed and even the charge has not been framed, the allegations in the FIR are not corroborated by any material whatsoever. Finding that prima facie not framing charge for almost three years, prima facie, violates the rights of the citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On that count alone, coupled with the fact that there is no material in the present case against the applicant and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

7. Let the applicant Dileep Verma Alias D.K. Alias Avinash Alias Chaudhary be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 269 of 2018, under Section 386 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.5.2024 Arun

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dileep Verma alias D.K. alias Avinash alias Chaudhary v. The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Verma alias D.K. alias Avinash alias Chaudhary v. The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

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

Aamin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Salman Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P.

Aman Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

Meera Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Faiz Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.