Sarvan @ Sharvan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9511

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1327 of 2025

Applicant :- Sarvan @ Sharvan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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. 380 of 2023, under Section 376AB, 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, P.S.-Umri Begamganj, District -Gonda.

¶8

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 the victim was major at the time of incident and for giving gravity to the alleged offence, her age has been mentioned as 15 years in the F.I.R. though, subsequently, the informant himself stated that the age of the victim is 19 years. He also added that the victim has performed marriage with the applicant and they are living as husband and wife and there is a female child from their wedlock. Further submission is that the alleged victim in her statement before the trial court has become hostile. Next submission is that there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 28 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.2.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

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.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the victim was major at the time of incident and for giving gravity to the alleged offence, her age has been mentioned as 15 years in the F.I.R. though,

¶11

subsequently, the informant himself stated that the age of the victim is 19 years; the victim has performed marriage with the applicant and they are living as husband and wife and there is a female child from their wedlock; the alleged victim in her statement before the trial court has become hostile; there is no criminal history of the applicant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.2.2024; 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 Sarvan @ Sharvan 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 sufficient 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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Ram Murti

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarvan @ Sharvan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvan @ Sharvan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nandu @ Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Suraj Singh @ Surya Partap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Durgesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohd. Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Muslim Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Asharfee Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.