Viresh vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38094

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3576 of 2025

Applicant :- Viresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Viresh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case No. 4344 of 2010 (State Vs. Viresh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. C-2 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah.

¶9

The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 27.03.2004 against the applicant and 8 other persons by Sughar Singh on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated after which a final report was submitted by the police. The informant Sughar Singh then appears to have moved a protest petition on which vide order dated 07.09.2007 the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah summoned the applicant and other accused persons for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the said order dated 07.09.2007 the applicant and others filed an application under 482 Cr.P.C. petition before this Court being Crl. Misc Application U/s 482 No. 26244 of 2008 (Viresh and others Vs. State of U.P.) which was disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2008, copy of the order is annexed as annexure 7 to the affidavit. The informant also challenged the proceedings of the said case and the orders dated 25.05.2009 and 26.05.2009 passed by the trial court against him in 482 petition being Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 14321 of 2009 (Sughar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which vide order dated

¶10

24.06.2009 operation of the said orders and the proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. were stayed. Subsequently, the said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2021 when no one had appeared and observations made that it appears to have rendered infructuous by efflux of time.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that identically placed co-accused Dinesh, Shivraj and Ashok have been granted bail vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 423 of 2025 (Dinesh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 11 to the affidavit. It is submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Rani but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 30 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.12.2024.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the incident is of the year 2004. The FIR was lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated after which a final report was submitted by the police. Co-accused Dinesh, Shivraj and Ashok have been granted bail.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Viresh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶21

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶22

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

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.3.2025 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Viresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viresh v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Rani Devi vs State of U.P.

Rajjo Alias Manjoo vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Sahani @ Bhabhuti Sahani vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Nepali Urf Imran vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh @ Aryan vs State of U.P.