Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18558

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10895 of 2024

Applicant :- Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no.4 & 5. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 & 3.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.335 of 2024, under Section 74 of B.N.S.S and Section 9M/10 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 29.08.2024 when the applicant allegedly performed obscene activities with the minor daughter of informant.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the statement of alleged victim recorded during the course of trial, a copy of which has been brought record by means of supplementary affidavit dated 17.02.2025 to submit that in the Examination-inChief, victim has not indicated any aspect which would attract the Sections imputed against applicant. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 30.08.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite parties have opposed bail application with the submission that the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly corroborate the

¶11

allegations levelled against applicant.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶14

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶15

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears from the statement of victim recorded in Examination-in-Chief before trial court that except for the applicant having catching hold of the hand of victim, there does not appear to be any other aspect with regard to the section imputed against the applicant who is under incarceration since 30.08.2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶16

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma , involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) 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.

¶20

(ii) 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.

¶21

(iii) 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.

¶22

(iv) 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. 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 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

Imran @ Imran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Chandra Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Suresh Kumar Alias Badaku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Saif Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.