Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80888

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3063 of 2024

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vayu Nandan Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

None appears for the complainant although notice is served.

¶8

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2024, which is extracted below:-

¶9

"1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶10

2.It is alleged in the first information report that minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years has been impregnated by the accused applicant by illegal means by making physical relationship. When she got her daughter checked by Asha Bahu of the village, it was informed that she was pregnant.

¶11

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has married the victim. Both were living happily. The victim is a consenting party.

¶12

4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that according to school record, on the date of the incident, the victim was fifteen years and 10 months old and was pregnant. The victim in her statement has admitted the fact that the child in her womb belongs to the applicant. It is submitted that since the victim was minor, consent is of no relevance.

¶13

5.On due consideration to the fact that the victim on the date of incident was less than 16 years of age as per school record, coupled with corroborative medical evidence as well as the statement of the victim under section 164 CrPC, complicity of the accused applicant is prima facie evident. The consent of the victim who was less than 16 years old at the time of incident is meaningless. It is a heinous offence. No case for bail is made out.

¶14

6.The bail application is rejected.

¶15

7.The trial court is directed to expedite the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶16

8.Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the trial court within

¶17

four days from today. "

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim as well as first informant have been examined before the trial court; there is no chance of tempering the prosecution evidence; according to the statement of PW-1 dated 01.11.2023 given before the Special court, the victim appears to be major. He further submits that the applicant having no criminal history has falsely been implicated and is languishing in jail since 05.08.2023.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶20

Perusal of the report received from the trial court dated 16.05.2024 shows that three prosecution witnesses have been examined including the doctor; the applicant has filed the statement of PW-1- the prosecutrix, thus in total four witnesses have been examined.

¶21

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record and having considered the fact that the fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court; the applicant having no criminal history is in jail since 05.08.2023 and there is no chance of tempering the prosecution evidence, and also the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC 813 ,without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Let the applicant Sandeep Kumar Verma , involved in Case Crime No.70 of 2023 under sections 376 I.P.C. Section 5 (J-ii)/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2)(v), 3 (2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Jarwa, district Balrampur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iii) 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.

¶26

(iv) 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.

¶27

(v) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(vi) 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.

¶29

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶30

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Renu/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kumar Verma v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Verma v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

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

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shatrohan @ Shatrughan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Pankaj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.