Dismissed¶7

Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024BAIL/571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected (Allahabad HC, Lucknow Bench, 6.8.2024, Pankaj Bhatia J.) — Case Crime No.11 of 2022, Ss.147/148/149/302/504/506 IPC, P.S. Neemgaon, Lakhimpur Kheri; specific role of firing causing death attributed to applicant Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma; custody since 14.01.2022; only 2 of 25 witnesses examined. Eye-witnesses S.No.8 Anmol @ Tushar Trivedi and S.No.10 Idrish Khan to be produced by SP and examined within two months; bail plea revivable thereafter. Neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:54028.

What did the court decide?

None — bail refused; ancillary directions issued for examination of two named eye-witnesses within two months (with SP, Lakhimpur Kheri to ensure their production) and liberty to revive the bail plea thereafter. ¶7

Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant, arraigned in Case Crime No.11 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 IPC with the specific allegation of causing the firearm injury that resulted in death, is entitled to bail. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Prima facie, on the basis of the allegations and statements, the specific role of causing the firearm injury resulting in the death of the deceased was assigned to the applicant; accordingly, no case for bail was made out and the bail application was rejected.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed to examine the remaining eye-witnesses shown at serial no.8 (Anmol @ Tushar Trivedi) and serial no.10 (Idrish Khan) without giving any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

¶8

Key takeaways

The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to ensure production of these two witnesses for deposition without fail, and their evidence is to be recorded within a period of two months.ratio¶9
The applicant would be at liberty to revive the bail plea after the said two witnesses are examined.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Order dated 6.8.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:54028): Bail application of Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma in Case Crime No.11 of 2022, Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, REJECTED — prima facie the specific role of causing the firearm injury resulting in death was assigned to the applicant, so no case for bail was made out, notwithstanding the parity argument with an enlarged co-accused, custody since 14.01.2022, and only two of twenty-five proposed witnesses having been examined. Ancillary directions: the trial court to examine eye-witnesses at serial no.8 (Anmol @ Tushar Trivedi) and serial no.10 (Idrish Khan) without unnecessary adjournments; the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri to ensure their production and have their evidence recorded within two months; the applicant free to revive the bail plea after their examination.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54028

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 571 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Asarey Verma,Dharm Trivedi,Harsh Vardhan Kediya,Nadeem Murtaza,Rajneesh Kumar Verma,Ramakar Shukla,Subodh Kumar Pandey,Surendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2022 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that the applicant along with other co-accused had caused firearm injuries which resulted in the death of one of the victims. Specific allegations of causing the firearm injury were alleged against the applicant.

¶9

It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that the coaccused against whom there were no specific allegation of causing the firearm injury was enlarged on bail, however, the applicant continues to be in custody since 14.01.2022. He further argues that out of total proposed twenty five witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined and the applicant continues to be in custody since 14.01.2022 and there appears to be no likelihood of the trial being concluded expeditiously. He thus argues that the applicant may be enlarged on bail as the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that the specific role of causing the firearm injury was assigned to the applicant and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application deserves to be rejected. He further argues that the prosecution will try to expedite the trial by producing the witnesses.

¶11

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie on the basis of the allegations and the statements, specific role of causing firearm was assigned to the applicant which resulted in death of the deceased, as such, no case for bail is made out.

¶12

7. The bail application is rejected.

¶13

However, it is directed that the remaining eye witnesses namely witness shown at serial no.8 Anmol @ Tushar Trivedi and the witness shown at serial no.10 Idrish Khan will be examined by the trial court without giving any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to ensure that these two witnesses are produced for their deposition without fail and the evidence these two witnesses shall be recorded within a period of two months.

¶15

The applicant would be at liberty to revive the bail plea after the said two witnesses are examined.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri for its compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.8.2024

¶18

VNP/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riyaz Alias Khurchali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt Lko.

Anjani Kumar @ Nankau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Manish Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Taufik Vs State of U.P Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Syed Mehdi Hasan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Anothers

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko