Sudhir Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4891

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 718 of 2025

Applicant :- Sudhir Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Second Supplementary AfÏdavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.0377 of 2024, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that identically situated Alok Kumar Singh @ Rahul Singh has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.160 of 2025, vide order dated 9.1.2025 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same. He further submits that there are two cases criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 2 of the Second Supplementary AfÏdavit and the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail. But he could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that identically situated Alok Kumar Singh @ Rahul Singh has already been granted bail by this Court; there are two cases criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 2 of the Second Supplementary AfÏdavit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sudhir 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

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

¶16

(3) The applicant 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 AKS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhir Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Soni Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Raja Singh @ Veer Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Niranjan Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Shubham Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Parvez @ Anuj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others