Kuber Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Jul 2025
- Bench
- KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC-LKO:44330
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated with a recovery of Rs. 500/- shown from him. The charge sheet in the case has already been filed, and the applicant is in custody since 15.06.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Arjit Verma who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 6630 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Operative part
On due consideration to the facts that co-accused Arjit Verma has been granted bail; no test identification parade has been conducted, the charge sheet has been filed, and the applicant is in jail since 15.06.2025 without having any criminal antecedents, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Kuber Verma involved in Case Crime No.497/2025, U/S-310(2),317(3), BNS, Police station- Kotwali Sadar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 R.C.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 209; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 84; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 31 Jul 2025. The bench was KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.