Mahesh Kumar Verma v. The State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11562 of 2023 Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shravan Kumar Verma,Achyuta Nand Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶1Opposite party no.2 is shown to have been served as per information given by learned A.G.A. and also enclosed as C.A.- 1 of the counter affidavit, however, the complainant/informant is not represented.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Mahesh Kumar Verma for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.103 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bahraich, during trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶5It is further submitted that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the informant with the allegations that the applicant has enticed away his daughter aged about 17 years on 10.06.2023 and thereafter they are not traceable. The prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the applicant and thereafter her statement has been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has not levelled any allegation against the applicant and stated that she had accompanied the applicant as she wanted to go in a fair organized at Ayodhya.

¶6It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation against the applicant in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and it appears that on the basis of statement allegedly noted by the Doctor, while the prosecutrix was under medical examination, charge sheet has been submitted.

¶7It is further submitted that the duty of the Doctor is only to assess the circumstances under which the offence has been committed and the statement/information given by the prosecutrix to the Doctor may not be used for any purpose as the statement of a witness may only be recorded either under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the age of the prosecutrix as per her educational credentials is 14 years, 10 months and 6 days, however, the same is immaterial as no allegation of any kind has been levelled by her against the applicant in her statements.

¶8It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since

25.06.2023 and he is not having any criminal history, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶9Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that after recovery of the prosecutrix, her statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and in both her statements she has not levelled any allegation against the applicant. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since

25.06.2023 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶11Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.

¶12Let the accused/applicant-Mahesh Kumar Verma involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶14Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶15Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Anupam S/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench