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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 72 of 2025

Manoj Verma

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anurag Singh, Archana Yadav, Chandan Verma, Ishan Bhasin Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 11

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶10

From the Office report dated 04.02.2025 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of the State dated 21.03.2025, it is apparent that service of notice upon private opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. However, today when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present appeal.

¶11

In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶12

By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 842 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 448 of 2024 under Sections 64(2) M of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Hargoun, District-Sitapur.

¶13

It is stated that the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the appellant, having no criminal history to his credit and is in jail since 26.10.2024, which has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the State based upon the counter affidavit, is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶14

It is further stated that the case of the prosecution is doubtful for the reason that the FIR in question was lodged on 02.10.2024 at Police Station Hargoun, District Sitapur, by Opposite Party No.2, making allegations attracting the offence under Section 74 of the BNS, 2023 (akin to Section 354 IPC), and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. However, the victim subsequently changed the entire version of the prosecution in her statement before the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein allegations were made attracting the offence under Section 64(2)(M) of the

CRLA No. 72 of 2025

2

BNS.

It is also stated that, to support the allegations attracting the offence under Section 64(2)(M) of the BNS, no medical evidence is available with the prosecution to corroborate the version of Opposite Party No.2/victim. The case of the prosecution is completely bogus and concocted, which is evident from the fact that no independent eyewitness is available with the prosecution.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶20

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellantapplicant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

¶21

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶22

The impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 842 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 448 of 2024 under Sections 64(2) M of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.Hargoun, District-Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶27

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

CRLA No. 72 of 2025

¶32

3

¶33

(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.

¶34

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order.

¶35

September 1, 2025 Vinay/-

¶36

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶37

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Rajpal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Child in Conflict With Law (Ccl) Ram Chandra Verma Thru. His Father Budhram @ Budhai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Yogendra Kumar Gautam vs Shri Ravi Ranjan, Managing Director U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Lucknow and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Mohd. Rasheed vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Rajya Vardhan Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another