Guddu Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45095

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7049 of 2024

Applicant :- Guddu Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Dixit,Vineet Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

As per the office report, the notices to the complainant are served. However, none appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 19.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54 of 2022. The order is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶10

"1. Heard and gone through the entire record.

¶11

2. By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.0257 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act lodged at Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki.

¶12

3. The victim is a 14 years old girl; as per the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the accused-applicant and 4 co-accused raped her on 05.09.2021; the statement of the prosecutrix has been consistent throughout; even during medical examination, statement given to the Doctor, is to that effect.

¶13

4. Considering the heinousness of the offence, statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her tender age, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail at this stage. Hence, the bail plea is hereby refused and the application is rejected.

¶14

5. However, if case of the prosecution is not supported by the prosecutrix during her evidence before the Court, the accusedapplicant may renew his bail plea."

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of the first bail application, the victim has been examined. Along with the victim, all the prosecution witnesses have been

¶16

examined. Therefore, there is no chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses. It is next submitted that the victim in her examination before the trial court has stated that she was beaten by kicks and fists. However, in the medico legal examination, no injury was found on the person of the victim. The victim has further stated that the present applicant threatened her that her video will be made by him, but no recovery of any video has been made by the prosecution.

¶17

It is further submitted that in the medico legal examination of the victim, there is no either external or internal injury found on her body. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 11.9.2021. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 11.9.2021; all the prosecution witnesses have been examined; there appears to be no chance of tampering with the witnesses and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Guddu Verma involved in Case Crime No. 0257 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504 and 506 IPC; Section 5/6 POCSO Act; and Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki, 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:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶25

facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iv) 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.

¶27

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶28

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶29

Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Shravan

¶30

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

Guddu Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Jagdamba Prasad Mishra Vs Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Thru. Registrar General and Another

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar Vibhag Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Chunni Vs Secretary Bal Vikas Sewa and Pushtahar Lko. and 3 Others

Ajjan Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ravi Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Abu Bakara vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 4 Others