Allahabad High Court
Sumit Verma vs State Of U.P. on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6826 of 2023
Applicant :- Sumit Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh,Ram Bahadur,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ram Bahadur, counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.844 of 2022, under Sections 493, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage between the applicant and the victim was agreed upon in August, 2021. The applicant is stated to have entered into corporeal relationship with the victim on the pretext of marrying her and later on, on 02.10.2022 at about 10 to 11 am, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have flatly refused to marry. It is also alleged in the FIR that the brother of the applicant Manish Verma had even asked the victim to settle the matter and tell how much money she wants.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that both the applicant and the victim are advocates and major. It is true that the allegations levelled in the FIR have been narrated in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., but in the light of the judgment of Apext Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, wherein it has been stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the pretext of getting married cannot be termed as rape. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the matter is covered under Section 375 IPC and the applicant himself is an advocate and he has misused his power.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Sumit Verma involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The applicant 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. 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.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
Ravi Kant
