Amar Verma alias Golu v. State of U.P.) arising out of F.I.R

Judgment

1. Case called out. As per the office report dated 27.01.2025, service of notice upon opposite party No.2 is sufficient. However, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. Learned AGA is present on behalf of the State. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the

2. State and perused the record.

3. The applicant seeking the prayer of bail has filed this appeal. The earlier prayer(s) sought by the appellant/applicant seeking bail were rejected by this Court, as would appear from the order dated 02.05.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1610 of 2024, which reads as under :- "1. Case called out. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 to oppose the present appeal. In such circumstances, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 1282 of 2022 (Amar Verma alias Golu Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No.191 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Makhi, District- Unnao.

3. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Earlier the appellant/applicant approached this Court by means of Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2022 whereby a challenge was made to the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 80 of 2022 filed by the appellant/applicant and a prayer to release the appellant on bail was also made.

5. This Court upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as available on relevant point of time dismissed the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 13.08.2021 which reads as under: 2 "Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Unnao, in Bail Application No. 86 of 2020 (Amar Verma alia Golu Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 2019, under Sections 302/201 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. Bail Application No. 86 of 2020 of the applicant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 04.02.2020. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime. Although the appellant having love affairs with the deceased but there appears no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that it is a case of honour killing and the appellant has been wrongly roped in this case as the demand of illegal gratification was not fulfilled by the father of the appellant to the police officer. Next submission is that perusal of postmortem report shows that no incised wound was was found on the body of the deceased therefore the police has made false recovery of knife and bloodstained clothes of the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 1.8.2019. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the offence is serious in nature. On perusal of the call details report, the presence of the appellant is found at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that on the pointing out of the appellant, knife, bloodstained clothes of the appellant and one mobile phone without SIM of deceased were recovered by police during investigation. There is sufficient evidence available against the appellant. Learned A.G.A. has next submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail and the appeal/bail application is liable to be rejected. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I fine that it is not a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/applicant. The appeal is dismissed and bail application is rejected. However, the trial court is hereby directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same, within one year, if there is no legal impediment."

6. From the above quoted order of this Court dated 13.08.2021, it is apparent that this Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same within one year, if there is no legal impediment. 3

7. After the aforesaid, the appellant, under trial, without waiting for the prescribed period of one year, as indicated in the order of this Court dated 13.08.2021, preferred the second bail application before the Trial Court which was registered as Case No. 1228 of 2022. The Trial court, upon due consideration of the facts of the case, rejected the Second Application No. 1228 vide order dated 19.05.2022.

8. Challenging this order, almost on the same grounds, the appellant presented this present appeal in the Registry of this Court on 05.07.2022.

9. Presentation of this appeal is also prior to expiry of the period prescribed by this Court for conclusion of trial vide order dated 13.08.2021, quoted above.

10. The law says that second bail application should be preferred on subsequent/facts ground(s) which does not appear from the present appeal.

11. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the trial court whereby rejected the bail application of the present appellant.

12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

13. Before parting with, it would be appropriate to observe that the trial court shall make all possible efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously. It is in view of order of this Court dated 31.08.2021 and pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of expeditious conclusion of trial, as also Section 309 CrPC." The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of 4. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (P.A.) Act, 1989 against the order dated 11.07.2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.1811 of 2024, relating to Case Crime No.191/2019, under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case of false implication and abuse of process of law.

6. Elaborating aforesaid, appellant's counsel says that the appellant is in jail since 1st August, 2019 and as such taking note the period of incarceration he is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 4 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

7. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court." It is further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8. 01.08.2019 and several formal witnesses are yet to be examined and in this aspect of the case, the conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

9. It is also stated that the statement of the informant has been recorded before the trial court, who has reiterated the facts as narrated in the F.I.R., but a perusal of the statement PW 2, who is the shop owner from where the knife is alleged to have been purchased, and the PW 4, who is the doctor, who are the important witnesses of the story of the prosecution would show that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could not be caused by sharp edged weapon including the 5 knife. According to statement of PW 2 before the trial court the knife produced before the trial court was not purchased from his shop.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the possibility of conviction of the appellant is bleak as the prosecution developed its case that the injuries were caused to the deceased with knife but the statement of the doctor shows that there was no injury of knife.

11. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel particularly the contradictions in the FIR and the statements of witnesses.

12. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the witnesses.

13. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the story setup in the FIR and the statements of witnesses and post mortem report of the deceased as also the period of incarceration and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

14. Order dated 11.07.2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.1811 of 2024, relating to Case Crime No.191/2019, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Makhi, District-Unnao is hereby set aside.

15. Let the appellant- Amar Verma alias Golu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) (ii) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 6 (v) The appellant 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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial 16. court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

17. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the

2. State and perused the record.

3. The applicant seeking the prayer of bail has filed this appeal. The earlier prayer(s) sought by the appellant/applicant seeking bail were rejected by this Court, as would appear from the order dated 02.05.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1610 of 2024, which reads as under :- "1. Case called out. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 to oppose the present appeal. In such circumstances, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 1282 of 2022 (Amar Verma alias Golu Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No.191 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Makhi, District- Unnao.

3. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Earlier the appellant/applicant approached this Court by means of Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2022 whereby a challenge was made to the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No. 80 of 2022 filed by the appellant/applicant and a prayer to release the appellant on bail was also made.

5. This Court upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as available on relevant point of time dismissed the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 13.08.2021 which reads as under: 2 "Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Unnao, in Bail Application No. 86 of 2020 (Amar Verma alia Golu Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 2019, under Sections 302/201 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. Bail Application No. 86 of 2020 of the applicant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 04.02.2020. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime. Although the appellant having love affairs with the deceased but there appears no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that it is a case of honour killing and the appellant has been wrongly roped in this case as the demand of illegal gratification was not fulfilled by the father of the appellant to the police officer. Next submission is that perusal of postmortem report shows that no incised wound was was found on the body of the deceased therefore the police has made false recovery of knife and bloodstained clothes of the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 1.8.2019. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the offence is serious in nature. On perusal of the call details report, the presence of the appellant is found at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that on the pointing out of the appellant, knife, bloodstained clothes of the appellant and one mobile phone without SIM of deceased were recovered by police during investigation. There is sufficient evidence available against the appellant. Learned A.G.A. has next submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail and the appeal/bail application is liable to be rejected. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I fine that it is not a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/applicant. The appeal is dismissed and bail application is rejected. However, the trial court is hereby directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same, within one year, if there is no legal impediment."

6. From the above quoted order of this Court dated 13.08.2021, it is apparent that this Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same within one year, if there is no legal impediment. 3

7. After the aforesaid, the appellant, under trial, without waiting for the prescribed period of one year, as indicated in the order of this Court dated 13.08.2021, preferred the second bail application before the Trial Court which was registered as Case No. 1228 of 2022. The Trial court, upon due consideration of the facts of the case, rejected the Second Application No. 1228 vide order dated 19.05.2022.

8. Challenging this order, almost on the same grounds, the appellant presented this present appeal in the Registry of this Court on 05.07.2022.

9. Presentation of this appeal is also prior to expiry of the period prescribed by this Court for conclusion of trial vide order dated 13.08.2021, quoted above.

10. The law says that second bail application should be preferred on subsequent/facts ground(s) which does not appear from the present appeal.

11. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the trial court whereby rejected the bail application of the present appellant.

12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

13. Before parting with, it would be appropriate to observe that the trial court shall make all possible efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously. It is in view of order of this Court dated 31.08.2021 and pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of expeditious conclusion of trial, as also Section 309 CrPC." The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of 4. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (P.A.) Act, 1989 against the order dated 11.07.2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.1811 of 2024, relating to Case Crime No.191/2019, under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case of false implication and abuse of process of law.

6. Elaborating aforesaid, appellant's counsel says that the appellant is in jail since 1st August, 2019 and as such taking note the period of incarceration he is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 4 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

7. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court." It is further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 8. 01.08.2019 and several formal witnesses are yet to be examined and in this aspect of the case, the conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

9. It is also stated that the statement of the informant has been recorded before the trial court, who has reiterated the facts as narrated in the F.I.R., but a perusal of the statement PW 2, who is the shop owner from where the knife is alleged to have been purchased, and the PW 4, who is the doctor, who are the important witnesses of the story of the prosecution would show that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could not be caused by sharp edged weapon including the 5 knife. According to statement of PW 2 before the trial court the knife produced before the trial court was not purchased from his shop.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the possibility of conviction of the appellant is bleak as the prosecution developed its case that the injuries were caused to the deceased with knife but the statement of the doctor shows that there was no injury of knife.

11. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel particularly the contradictions in the FIR and the statements of witnesses.

12. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the witnesses.

13. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the story setup in the FIR and the statements of witnesses and post mortem report of the deceased as also the period of incarceration and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

14. Order dated 11.07.2024, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.1811 of 2024, relating to Case Crime No.191/2019, under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Makhi, District-Unnao is hereby set aside.

15. Let the appellant- Amar Verma alias Golu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) (ii) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 6 (v) The appellant 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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial 16. court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

17. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench