Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37818 (ALL)

NEERAJ VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/11525/2025 · 2025-05-14

Krishan Pahal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80010 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11525 of 2025 Applicant :- Neeraj Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Km. Reena,Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Saurabh Varshney Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant, as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 516 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(1), 127(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant called the victim to restaurant and had taken her to a secluded place and committed rape with her on 14.11.2024 at about 10.00 am. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The said delay speaks volume of false implication, as the victim has stated that when her mother had reached home after about two days of the incident, she had narrated the story to her on that day only but the FIR is delayed by further four days. 7. It is further stated that the victim is the consenting party, as she had gone to the restaurant on being called by the applicant. Even the story as narrated by the victim does not stand fortified by the statement of the owner of the restaurant. 8. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the delay in institution of FIR has been explained in the FIR itself, as the informant reached the house on 19.11.2024 and the FIR was instituted the very next day of her reaching. It is further stated that as per ossification test report, the victim is 14-15 years old, as such, she is minor, even if a leverage of two years is granted to the applicant on the upper side. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in institution of FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, although the age of the victim is stated to be 14-15 years only, 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. 11. Let the applicant- Neeraj Verma, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 15.5.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad