Shivraj Verma @ Dharme @ Dharmraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16209

Court No. - 15

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

Applicant :- Shivraj Verma @ Dharme @ Dharmraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

The prosecutrix has been produced by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector and Head Constable Ms. Shama Bano of P.S. Jamon, District Amethi, in compliance of order dated 6.3.2025 passed by this Court.

¶7

The informant has also appeared before the court.

¶8

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anshuman Verma, the learned A.G.A. for the State as also Sri Laxman Singh, learned counsel for the informant, and perused the record.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 270/2024, under Sections 363,366,376,504,506 I.P.C. & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Jamon, District Amethi.

¶10

5 . The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.10.2024 against five persons, including the applicant and his cousin Guddu, on the basis of an application under Section 175 (3) of BNSS stating that the informant's minor daughter had gone missing from her home in the night of 15.10.2022. Upon making inquiries she came to know that the applicant had enticed her away. On 3.8.2024 the informant's daughter returned home and told her that the applicant had enticed her away under allurement of marrying her and he forcibly made physical relations with her.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application it has been stated that the applicant is a 20 years old innocent person having no criminal history.

¶12

Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 29.10.2024 has been annexed with the application wherein she has stated that she is aged 18 years. The accused persons had kidnapped her two years ago and somehow she came back. In response to a specific question put by the

¶13

investigating officer whether she has married the applicant, she stated that she does not know anything. When she was shown the wedding investigation-card, she stated that she does not remember anything. The investigating officer asked the prosecutrix that several persons and other villagers were present at the time of her marriage, whether she told any person that the marriage was being solemnized forcibly, she answered in negative. she stated that she was kept as a bondage in the house of Dharmraj for two years. In response to another question, she informed that there was no toilet inside the house of the applicant. Similar statement was given by the prosecutrix before the Magistrate also.

¶14

Several photographs showing solemnization of marriage ceremony between the applicant and daughter of the applicant have been annexed with the bail application and in some of the photographs she is shown in an affectionate gesture with the applicant.

¶15

It has been stated in the application that the applicant had filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur. The medicolegal report of the victim did not reveal any mark of injury or sign of use of force. In radio-logical examination, age of the victim has been opined to be 18 years.

¶16

This Court showed the photographs annexed with the affidavit to the informant and her daughter and initially both of them declined to recognize the photographs. After persuasion by their counsel, the informant's daughter admitted that the wedding photographs shows her getting married to the applicant. Conduct of the informant and her daughter in making false statements before the court in an attempt to mislead the court is strongly deprecated.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the photographs of marriage between their informant's daughter and the applicant annexed with the bail-application, which have been admitted by the informant and her daughter before this court, and the fact that the applicant had already filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending consideration before the Family Court, coupled with the fact that the applicant is a young man having no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 20.12.2024, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Shivraj Verma @ Dharme @ Dharmaj be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶22

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶24

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 A.Nigam

¶25

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

Shivraj Verma @ Dharme @ Dharmraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj Verma @ Dharme @ Dharmraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Jagdeep Kanojiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Pawan Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) and 3 Others

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

Manoj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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