Budhiram Verma @ Buddhiram Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homee Deptt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28316

Court No. - 29

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3179 of 2025 Applicant :- Budhiram Verma @ Buddhiram Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homee Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 400 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 103(1), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next submits that general role has been assigned for assaulting and beating against four accused persons, including the present applicant and no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused. He next submits that 'lathi' is allegedly got recovered by the police on the pointing out of the present applicant, though no disclosure report is evident from the record. He next added that one of the co-accused, namely, Sunita Verma has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 242 of 2025. He added that the recovered weapon is not fatal, even the Investigating Officer has failed to collect the cogent piece of evidence but he has filed the chargesheet. Next submission is that the evidences are so weak that there is no possibility that the trial would lead to the punishment. Further the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained and he is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 10.07.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has

¶9

opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and nature of allegation is serious. He was involved in committing the offecne and as such chargesheet has been filed, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons, including the present applicant; one co-accused has already been granted bail; the role of the present applicant is distinct only to the effect that the 'lathi' is got recovered from his possession, though it seems that the procedure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the law as established are not complied with in its letter and spirit; the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 10.07.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Budhiram Verma @ Buddhiram 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

(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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 kkv/

¶20

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

Budhiram Verma @ Buddhiram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homee Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

Budhiram Verma @ Buddhiram Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homee Deptt. Lko

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

Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Shaleen Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anotehr

Gautam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Bablu @ Badlu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.and Another

Lal Singh @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others