Allowed

Narendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024/772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside a Special Judge's order denying bail. Finding the trial court failed to consider facts of examined witnesses, the Court released the appellant on bail with personal bond and sureties and directed expeditive trial under specific criminal procedure conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and sureties; impugned order set aside; trial directed to conclude expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Narendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5072

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 772 of 2023 Appellant :- Narendra Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Atul Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Case Crime No.418/2015 under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act, Police StationAliganj, District- Lucknow

¶8

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon victim/private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case only with the intention to make pressure for solemnizing marriage as he was selected in CRPF. He further submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution that the victim was a major and prudent lady and she was in association with the appellant, and thereafter, appellant made physical relations with her and gave assurance that after getting employment, he will solemnize marriage with her, as the appellant was selected in CRPF in the year of 2013 then the victim told him for solemnizing marriage then again, assurance was given that after completion of the training period, he will enter into the marriage with her, thereafter, he started avoiding the phone calls of the victim, victim also went to meet family of the appellant in the month of March, 2013 but all the family members of the appellant misbehaved with the victim when she met with the appellant and requested for solemnizing marriage then he told that she belonged to SC Community, therefore, he did not solemnize marriage with her and after two year in January, 2015, she made a complaint to the SHO, Aliganj, Lucknow, and thereafter, oral assurance was given that marriage will be solemnized within a period of six months but thereafter, appellant denied, and later on, F.I.R. of case in

¶10

question was lodged.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution story is highly improbable, as per the prosecution case, the incident of rape was committed in the year of 2010, thereafter, video clip was also prepared and victim was being blackmailed on the basis of said video clip and upto 2013, she was sexually abused but no explanation was given by the victim as if in the month of March, 2013, the appellant denied for marriage then why instead of making complaint to the police, she waited for the period of two years. He further submitted that the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner and the appellant is in jail since 18.12.2019. He further submitted that all the witnesses of fact have already been and only two formal witnesses are to be examined and there s no possibility of tampering of evidences. He further submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution version in her statement but he does not dispute this fact that the marriage was denied in the month of March, 2013 and the F.I.R. of case in question was lodged in October, 2015.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined, as the appellant is in jail since 18.12.2019, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant- Narendra Kumar Verma involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) In case, the appellant 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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Narendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Anoop Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashutosh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Mahmood Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Sameem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. and Another