Allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024CRLA/2489/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against bail rejection allowed. High Court found material illegality in denying bail, granting release on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions to ensure presence and prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties; trial court directed to grant bail with specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Alok Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65617

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2489 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Alok Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S Malik E Ashtar Rizvi,Kumar Lakshay

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Keeping in view the copy of the written communication enclosed with the counter affidavit filed by the State as C.A.-9 the respondent no.2 appears to have been served personally, however, she is not represented.

¶8

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

¶9

This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 31.07.2024, passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in bail application no. 2365 of 2024, "Alok Kuamr Verma Vs. State of U.P. and another", arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Sections 376, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jahangeerabad, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant/applicant has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for appellant submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of this case has been lodged by the prosecutrix/ victim herself on 01.07.2024 alleging therein various incidents on which sexual assault has been committed by the appellant.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that dispute between the parties is pertaining to the division of money which has been earned by selling muskmelon which were jointly sown by the appellant and the husband of the victim and a false case has been cooked up when the appellant has demanded his share of money.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 an 164 Cr.P.C. would reveal that she has also been sexually assaulted on 15.5.2024 and her

¶13

husband in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that at that time she was present in her house and she had seen the appellant emerging from the room of his wife, thus if the statement of the prosecutrix and of her husband are read conjointly it will emerge that either a false case has been cooked up against the appellant or the prosecutrix/ victim was a consenting party.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is huge delay in lodging the FIR and the same has not been adequately explained. The medical reports of the prosecutrix are clean and no injury etc. has been found anywhere on her body and the appellant is in jail in this case since 02.07.2024 and he is not having any criminal antecedent apart from the instant case and there is no apprehension that the accused-appellant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant.

¶16

Considering the fact that during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded the evidence of various independent witnesses who have stated that the appellant and husband of the victim were close friends and the dispute between them was pertaining to the money earned by selling muskmelon and it is on this account this case has been lodged as also the fact that multiple time sexual assault has been committed by the appellant and the same has not been admittedly reported anywhere and one of such assault is shown to have been committed when the husband of the victim was present in the house along with her children and also the fact that the medical reports of the victim are clean. The applicant is in jail in this case since 02.07.2024 and he is not having any criminal history, a case of bail is emerging in favour of the appellant.

¶17

Thus, having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court material illegality has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the prayer of bail of the appellant.

¶18

In result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Barabanki is hereby set-aside .

¶19

Let appellant- Alok Kumar Verma be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction

¶20

of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.

¶22

(ii) The appellant 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.

¶23

(iii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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.

¶24

(iv) 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 appellant 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.

¶25

(v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶26

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶27

Order Date :- 21.9.2024 Muk

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bulaki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitesh Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Sukhlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another

Mahesh Arakh @ Mahesh Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Altaf @ Aftab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another