Allowed

Vishal @ Atul Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024CRLA/566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal against a bail refusal order. Finding the appellant's role surfaced only in a confession, co-accused were on bail, and no material was recovered, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail refusal order dated 26.09.2023 was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings regarding court

Vishal @ Atul Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25639

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 566 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vishal @ Atul Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma,Sanjeet Kumar Patel,Sanjeev Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on private respondent but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent, therefore, matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow arising out of F.I.R. No. 120 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and F.I.R. was lodged after one month from the date of incident and body of the deceased has not been recovered. He also submits that He further submits that coaccused, Devendra Kumar Verma & Shivakant @ Shivakant Verma, have already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 31.1.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.3269 of 2023 & 87 of 2023 respectively (photo copies of bail orders provided by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record). He lastly submits that trial is not going on and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, therefore, appellant, who is in jail since 28.4.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant but he does not dispute the fact that involvement of the applicant was surfaced in his confessional statement and nothing is recovered on the pointing out of the applicant.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that involvement of the appellant is surfaced in the confessional statement of the appellant as well as other coaccused persons and nothing was recovered, it is also evident that co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, present appellant is also entitled for bail.

¶11

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶12

Order order dated 26.09.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow arising out of F.I.R. No. 120 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant Vishal @ Atul Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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,

¶16

without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 applicant 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.3.2024

¶20

Gaurav/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishal @ Atul Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal @ Atul Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganesh Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sanjay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Jagannath Singh Alias Munnu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jatan Alias Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sarpanch Alias Rafeek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another