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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23913

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 885 of 2025 Appellant :- Mahesh Chandra Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶4

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶5

Heard Shri Vijay Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Gonda in Second Bail Application No. 209 of 2025 (Mahesh Chandra Verma and another vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. & Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Khargupur, District- Gonda.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case on account of the alleged scuffle on 16.10.2024 at 08.00 pm in the night on account of some land dispute. He further submits that the injuries inflicted on the victims were simple in nature. One of the victim namely, Santram Sonkar S/o- Ramhetu had died on 27.10.2024, on account of which Section 105 B.N.S., 2023 was also levelled against the appellant, therefore, the bail application filed by him was rejected. However, subsequently on the basis of the report of the Doctor in response to the letter of Circle Officer, Gonda and his statement, it has been found that the death has not occurred on account of the injuries sustained in the alleged

¶8

scuffle on 16.10.2024 but on account of falling on some hard ground. He further submits that on account of some injuries in the chest, the injured was referred for X-ray, but in X-ray report, N.A.D. was found and in the report of the radiologist also there was no fracture found in the chest of the injured.

¶9

He further submits that the allegations of the S.C./S.T. Act are false. Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be in public view. It is submitted that all the sections, under which the charge-sheet has been filed, are punishable with punishment below 7 years, but without considering the same, the bail application has been rejected. He further submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 30.10.2024. He also submits that in case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant but could not contradict the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and as no specific role has been assigned to anybody in the alleged scuffle on 16.10.2024 and the injuries were simple in nature and the allegation of Section 105 B.N.S., 2023 has not been found and all the sections are punishable below 7 years and the allegations of the S.C./S.T. Act could not be shown to be in public view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellant.

¶12

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed . The impugned order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Gonda is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Mahesh Chandra Verma involved in the

¶14

aforementioned case 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, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellant 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.

¶16

(ii) The appellant 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 under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.4.2025/Shravan

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chandra 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

Vartika Patel Thru. Husband Anupam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 8 Others

Neha Kaushal @ Rakhi Kaushal @ Neha Vs Shiva Gupta @ Sonu

Ishanavi Singh Thru. Biological Father Amit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mahesh Chandra Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chaitanya Sharma Under Guardianship of Mother Smt. Manisha Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others