Allahabad High Court
Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48863
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10782 of 2024
Applicant :- Chaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Harsh Vardhan Kediya,Parth Anand
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard SriNadeem Murtaza,learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
This is the second bail application of the applicant which has been filed seeking bail inCase Crime No.11 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri.The first bail application of the applicant bearing Bail No.571 of 2023 was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024. The order is extracted below:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2022 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. In terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled that the applicant along with other co-accused had caused firearm injuries which resulted in the death of one of the victims. Specific allegations of causing the firearm injury were alleged against the applicant.
4. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that the co-accused against whom there were no specific allegation of causing the firearm injury was enlarged on bail, however, the applicant continues to be in custody since 14.01.2022. He further argues that out of total proposed twenty five witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined and the applicant continues to be in custody since 14.01.2022 and there appears to be no likelihood of the trial being concluded expeditiously. He thus argues that the applicant may be enlarged on bail as the applicant has no criminal history.
5. Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that the specific role of causing the firearm injury was assigned to the applicant and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application deserves to be rejected. He further argues that the prosecution will try to expedite the trial by producing the witnesses.
6. Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie on the basis of the allegations and the statements, specific role of causing firearm was assigned to the applicant which resulted in death of the deceased, as such, no case for bail is made out.
7. The bail application is rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the remaining eye witnesses namely witness shown at serial no.8 Anmol @ Tushar Trivedi and the witness shown at serial no.10 Idrish Khan will be examined by the trial court without giving any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.
9. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to ensure that these two witnesses are produced for their deposition without fail and the evidence these two witnesses shall be recorded within a period of two months.
10. The applicant would be at liberty to revive the bail plea after the said two witnesses are examined.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri for its compliance."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is pressing this second bail application in view of liberty granted by this Court while rejecting the first bail application as the direction was issued to the learned trial court to examine the remaining two witnesses namely, Anmol and Idrish Khan. He submits that there are four eye witnesses of the incident. P.W.2-Anshumaan and P.W.4 Anmol Trivedi are nephew of the deceased, both have supported the prosecution version. P.W.2 in the cross-examination has stated that except Chhotu he does not know any other accused till date which makes his statement doubtful. P.W.3-Idrish Khan has turned hostile he thus, contended that two witness namely, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not supported the prosecution case and their statement is in contradiction to the other two witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.4 who are related to each other. Out of 25 witness only 4 witnesses have been examined till date. Applicant has no criminal history. Trial is going on at a slow pace. Applicant is in jail since 14.01.2022. Applicant has incarcerated for more than 3 years and 7 months in jail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer and submits that it is a heinous offence, the ante mortem injuries corroborates the prosecution case rather the statement of eye witness is corroborated by the single ante mortem injuries received by the deceased.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2022 having no criminal history,applicant has incarcerated for more than 3 years and 7 months in jail and still 21 witnesses are yet to be examined, varied/contradictory statement of the eye witnesses so alsothe judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicantChaman Verma @ Arvind Kumar Vermabe released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the 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 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.
(iv) The applicant 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.
(v) The applicant 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 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails 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, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).
Order Date :- 20.8.2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
