Sarvesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42588

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1092 of 2025 Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Farooq Ayoob,Mansi Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar,Rakesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Mansi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.789 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.1096 of 2024, under Sections- 103(1) B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Fatehpur, District- Barabanki.

¶7

For the purposes of coming to the conclusion, this Court considered the following facts as available on record:-

¶8

(i) The FIR was lodged against unknown persons, registered as FIR/Case Crime No.1096 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. (akin to Section 302 I.P.C.) and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at Police Station- Fatehpur, District- Barabanki.

¶9

(ii) In connection with the aforesaid FIR, the appellant having no criminal history, which fact has not been opposed/disputed, was apprehended and sent to jail and is in jail since 29.12.2024.

¶10

(iii) According to the case of prosecution, the body of deceased was found in the agricultural field of Ram Manohar and the said body was in two parts.

¶11

(iv) According to the statement(s) of witnesses of inquest report, namely, Samar Singh, Lavkush Gautam, Surendra Gautam, Bacchu Lal Gauta and Sumerilal Gautam, which are on record as Annexure 6, statement(s) of other witnesses, namely, Sumitra Devi and Rajkumari Devi recorded by the Investigating Officer indicate that the appellant used to frequently visit the house of the deceased and both were in talking terms and on account of opposition by the family members including son of deceased, the appellant was pressurizing the deceased to continue with the relationship.

¶12

(v) According to the statement of informant/Raju, the deceased blocked the mobile number of the present appellant. It is to be noted that Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation on this aspect of the matter.

¶13

(vi) Based upon the aforesaid statements, the appellant was apprehended and on his pointing out a blood stained shirt and knife were recovered.

¶14

(vii) Till date F.S.L. report has not been received by the prosecution and it is a case of circumstantial evidence.

¶15

Considered the aforesaid facts as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Mansi Gupta, which are to the effect that link to connect the appellant with the present crime is missing and also that if the story of prosecution, as stated by the witnesses during investigation, is taken on its face value, then it could be a case of honour killing and the appellant has been implicated in the instant case, as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A., which are based on the statement of accused, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions as envisaged under Section 25 of Evidence Act.

¶16

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also the FIR, impugned order, as also the fact that the appellant is in jail since 29.12.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶17

Order 18.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.789 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.1096 of 2024, under Sections- 103(1) B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Fatehpur, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶18

Let the appellant- Sarvesh Kumar Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶19

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶21

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶23

(v) The appellant 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 facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶25

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶26

(viii) 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.

¶27

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶28

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶29

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Anand/-

¶30

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

Sarvesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Lok Nath Mishra Vs District and Session Judge Bahraich and Ors.

Ram Sanehi and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Juvenile X , Thru. His Natural Guardian /Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Tiwari Vs Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court NO.9 Lucknow and Others

Ram Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Station Officer Maanpur Sitapur and Anr.

Chottey Lalla U/a 227 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.