Mulayam Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35222

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1051 of 2025

Appellant :- Mulayam Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present appeal has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶8

"To set-aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2025 passed by court of Learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Gonda in Bail Application No. 209 of 2025; Mulayam Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. in pursuance of Case Crime No. 249 of 2024, Under Section 115(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) of Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda and released appellant on bail, during pendency of his trial, in the interest of justice."

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 30.10.2024. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Mahesh Chandra Verma has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2025 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 885 of 2025. He next submits that the appellant undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant. However, he does not dispute the fact that coaccused, namely, Mahesh Chandra Verma has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that coaccused, namely, Mahesh Chandra Verma has already been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the fact that the trial of the

¶13

case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The impugned order dated 15.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Gonda in Bail Application No. 209 of 2025 is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Mulayam 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:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the appellant 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./209 B.N.S.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

¶19

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.6.2025 Arpan

¶21

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

Mulayam Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulayam Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Vishal Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mahendra Kumar @ Mahendra Jaiswal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Mahek Vimal Thru. Her Husband Satyam Verma @ Siddharth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 5 Others

Nitin Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jyoti @ Babli Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Juvenile X, Thru. His Father and Natural Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another