Amit Verma v. State of U.P. and Another). For ready reference, the order date
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119214 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23781 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Chhotu Alias Amit Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Shriyansh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shobhit Yadav Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. R.C. Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shobhit Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-4. Perused the record. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant- Chhotu Alias Amit Verma, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2021, under sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Tindwari, District- Banda, during the pendency of bail i.e. Sessions Tria No. 645 of 2021 (State Vs. Chhotu Alias Amit Verma), now pending in the Court of Special Judge(POCSO Act), Banda. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 18.2.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32605 of 2021 (Chhotoo @ Amit Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another). For ready reference, the order dated 18.2.2022 is reproduced herein under: "Heard Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This application for bail has been filed by applicant Chhotoo @ Amit Verma seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Tindwari, District Banda, during pendency of trial. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 22.5.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 23.5.2021 was lodged by first informant Smt. Saroj (mother of prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 67 of 2021, under Sections 354A, 506 IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Tindwari, District Banda. In the aforesaid F.I.R., applicant Chhotoo has been nominated as solitary named accused. According to the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 22.5.2021 at around 11.30 p.m. named accused is alleged to have molested the minor daughter of first informant namely Anjali aged about 11 years. After registration of above mentioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. Statement of prosecutirx was recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Same is on record as Annexure 2 to the affidavit. Prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. Thereafter, prosecutrix was medically examined. Her medico legal report is on record as Annexure 4 to the affidavit. The mother of the prosecutrix deposed before the Doctor that prosecutrix was molested by named accused. However, no external injury was found on the body of the prosecutrtix. There is no sign of use of force on the prosecutrix which deny the alleged commission of sexual violence. Ultimately, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. which is on record as Annexure 5 to the affidavit. The prosecutrix in her aforesaid statement has improved upon her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C., but she has supported the prosecution story in detail. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in aforementioned F.I.R. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended that there is no medical evidence to support the prosecution story. In the absence of medical evidence, no conviction of applicant is possible under Section 376 IPC. It is then contended that prosecutrix has not remained consistent in her statements under Sections 161/164 Cr. P. C. The statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr. P. C. is full of exaggeration and therefore not worthy of reliance. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.5.2021. As such, he has undergone almost 9 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for bail. Learned A.G.A. contends that the prosecutrix is a young girl of tender age aged about 10 years 7 months on the date of occurrence. Her date of birth as mentioned in Bail Rejection order is 19.10.2010. Learned A.G.A., therefore, contends that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and accusation made, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court, therefore applicant has not made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. " Learned counsel for applicant submits that though the applicant is a named and charge sheeted accused, and facing trial before court below, however, in view of the facts as have now emerged on record, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant submits that subsequent to the order dated 18.2.2022, the prosecutrix deposed before Court below as P.W.2, whereas the first informant deposed before Court below as P.W.1. He, therefore submits that once the statements of first informant and the prosecutrix have been recorded before Court below, then in that eventuality it cannot be said that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall either terrorize the witness or shall hamper the course of trial. He, therefore submits that in view of above there is no justifiable reason to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 26.5.2021. As such, he has undergone more than four years and nine months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, upto this stage no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during pendency of trial. Attention of the Court was invited to the depositions of the prosecutrix which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of present repeat application for bail. Much emphasis was laid upon the recital occurring at page 44 of the paper book, wherein the prosecutrix has stated that allegations with regard to dislodging her modesty was inadvertently stated. Since prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story, as such, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, then in that eventuality he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shobhit Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-4 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Learned counsel for first informant has invited attention of the Court to the earlier order dated 18.2.2022. With reference to the same he submits that prosecutrix was young and innocent girl aged about 10 years and seven months of incarceration. As such, offence complained of is not only illegal but also immoral. Infact the same is crime against society. Learned A.G.A. thus submits that even though this Court is a superior Court yet dictates of prudence require that this Court should not evaluate and appreciate the evidence which has emerged during the course of trial as any observation made by this Court shall pre-empt the trial and may affect the prosecution or the defence. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. contends that since no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged, as such, this repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence accusation made as well as complicity of applicant, coupled with the fact that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present repeat application for bail could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record, therefore irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of the present repeat application for bail, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any new good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. In view of above, the present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Arshad Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad