Hani Verma @ Yogendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heard Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶13

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 392 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

¶14

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶15

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶16

The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has categorically stated that her parents were against the applicant marrying the victim as he belonged to different caste. The victim, as such, had left her house as her marriage was to be solemnized with someone else and she had married the applicant and stayed with him at Faridabad, Haryana.

¶17

There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim is major as

¶18

BAIL No. 15123 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

her age is 19 years as per ossification test report.

¶21

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.3.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

¶23

Learned State Law Officer has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶24

CONCLUSION:

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the incident and the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS, whereby she seems to be consenting party and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Hani Verma @ Yogendra, who is involved in 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶28

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶29

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶30

May 5, 2026 Shalini

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hani Verma @ Yogendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hani Verma @ Yogendra v. State of U.P. 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

Sunil Ahirwar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mashalu @ Pradeep vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prashant vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shadab Vs State of U.P.

Jai Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others