# Mantu Verma @ Vivek Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 445
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mantu-verma-vivek-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50356
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 302 & 120 B - Punishment for
murder - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section 3(2)(V) - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - Appeal
against rejection of bail - F.I.R. lodged by
brother of deceased and alleged that his
brother was murdered by someone and
there was injury on his neck and suspicion
was caused on one person who called
deceased by mobile phone - Appellant
submitted that during investigation blood
stained
shoes
recovered
and
false
recovery of blood stained knife has shown
on his pointing, witnesses St.d same facts
as given by complainant. (Para 5, 11)

Held, the name of appellant was not in
F.I.R. nor there was any whisper in F.I.R.
regarding his role - At the time of inquest
his name was not in picture - In St.ment
of complainant first time his name came in
picture and fact that wife of deceased
used to talk on mobile phone with
appellant due to this reason there was
always fight took place between deceased
and his wife and it cannot be said that
appellant was involved in alleged crime -
No one has seen appellant near dead body
of deceased nor any witness has seen
appellant accompanying deceased nor it
was case of prosecution that mobile
phone was of appellant - The person by
whose phone last call was made to
deceased was enlarged on bail - No
ingredients
under
SC/ST
Act
was
attracted, as no one has seen alleged
incident at public place. (Para 21)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

7 All. Mantu Verma @ Vivek Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
445
I.P.C. by the impugned judgment and order
dated 09.02.1996 in the aforesaid Session
Trial No.167 of 1993 arising out Case
Crime No.150 of 1992, P.S. Baldeo,
District Mathura is hereby set aside and
both are acquitted of the charge of offence
under sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C.
The conviction of the accused appellant
No.1 Vinod under section 323 I.P.C. and
sentence of three months' R.I. is affirmed.
The conviction and sentence of the
appellant No.2 Pramod is altered and he is
convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. instead
of Section 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to
three months' RI. If the accused appellant
No.1 and the accused appellant No.2 have
not undergone imprisonment for three
months either during trial or during
pendency of this appeal, then they shall
surrender
forthwith
before
the
court
concerned and shall be sent to jail to
undergo the sentence under Section 323
I.P.C. awarded by the trial court and
affirmed by us. In the event, they have
already completed three months' sentence,
then they need not to surrender or to be
arrested. Their personal bonds and sureties
shall be cancelled.

53. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the court concerned forthwith
for compliance and also send back the trial
court record.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 445
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2022

Mantu Verma @ Vivek Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Upendra Prakash Pathak, Atul Verma, Hari
Krishna Verma, Sanjeet Kumar Patel

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Nisha Srivastava

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 302 & 120 B - Punishment for
murder - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section 3(2)(V) - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - Appeal
against rejection of bail - F.I.R. lodged by
brother of deceased and alleged that his
brother was murdered by someone and
there was injury on his neck and suspicion
was caused on one person who called
deceased by mobile phone - Appellant
submitted that during investigation blood
stained
shoes
recovered
and
false
recovery of blood stained knife has shown
on his pointing, witnesses St.d same facts
as given by complainant. (Para 5, 11)

Held, the name of appellant was not in
F.I.R. nor there was any whisper in F.I.R.
regarding his role - At the time of inquest
his name was not in picture - In St.ment
of complainant first time his name came in
picture and fact that wife of deceased
used to talk on mobile phone with
appellant due to this reason there was
always fight took place between deceased
and his wife and it cannot be said that
appellant was involved in alleged crime -
No one has seen appellant near dead body
of deceased nor any witness has seen
appellant accompanying deceased nor it
was case of prosecution that mobile
phone was of appellant - The person by
whose phone last call was made to
deceased was enlarged on bail - No
ingredients
under
SC/ST
Act
was
attracted, as no one has seen alleged
incident at public place. (Para 21)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
1984 Cri. L.J. 178

2. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526,
(Para 2)

3.Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC 463,
(Para 2)

4. Hitesh Verma Vs The St. of Uttrakhand
reported in (2020) 10 SCC, (Para 15)

5. Swaran Singh & ors. Vs St. (2008) 8SCC 435

6. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., reported
in (2018) 3 SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Atul Verma, the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs.
Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 and Sri Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the
State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the
entire record.

2.

The
pleadings
have
been
exchanged between the parties.

3. The present criminal appeal under
Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act has been preferred against the impugned
order dated 15.01.2022 passed by the Special
Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Barabanki in
Bail Application No.146 of 2022 ( Mantu
Verma Alias Vivek Verma Vs. State of U.P.),
arising out of Case Crime No.722/2021, under
Section 302, 120 B I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v)
SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District
Barabanki,
whereby
the
bail
application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The entire prosecution story is false
and fabricated and lodged only with the
intention to falsely implicate the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that an F.I.R. dated
05.09.2021 was lodged by the brother of
the deceased regarding an incident dated
04.09.2021 in which he has stated that he
has lodged a missing report of his brother
and it was clearly stated that after search it
was found that his brother was murdered by
someone and his body was lying in the
Village Naare Ka Purwa near hen farm and
there is injury on his neck and a suspicion
was caused on one Pankaj Kumar, who
called the deceased by mobile phone.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that in the F.I.R. name of
Pankaj Kumar was only mentioned and the
name of the appellant was not found place
in the F.I.R. nor there is any whisper in the
F.I.R. regarding the role of the appellant.
He further submits that the at the time of
inquest also the name of the appellant was
not in picture and at the time of inquest the
complainant was witness of the inquest.
Thereafter, the body of the deceased was
sent for the post-mortem and the postmortem was conducted on 05.09.2021. As
per post-mortem report the cause of death
was shock due to ante-mortem injuries and
three injuries were seen on the body of the
deceased.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the Investigating
Officer recorded the statement of the
complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in
which a new story has been build up by the
complainant and first time the name of the
appellant came in picture that the wife of
the deceased used to talk on mobile phone
7 All. Mantu Verma @ Vivek Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
447
with the appellant and it was also stated
that she also used to talk to several other
persons, as she is a woman of modern time
and since she used to talk to the appellant
due to this reason there was always fight
took place between the deceased and his
wife.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that only on the statement
of the complainant that the appellant used
to talk with the wife of the deceased it
cannot be said that the appellant is involved
in the alleged crime.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the other witness,
namely Sadhna Verma has also only stated
this fact that the appellant used to talk with
the wife of the deceased and due to their
conspiracy he was killed. Another witness
Durgesh also stated almost the same thing
which was stated by Sadhna Verma in her
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
while placing reliance upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178 has
argued that it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and the chain of evidence is
totally broken, the police has also failed to
complete the chain of evidence to connect
the appellant in the present crime. No one
has seen the appellant near the dead body
of the deceased nor any witness has seen
the appellant accompanying the deceased
nor it is a case of prosecution that the
mobile phone, which was recovered is of
the appellant. He further submits that there
is no any direct witness of the alleged
crime, thus it cannot be said that the
appellant is involved in the present case.
The appellant is roped by the police only to
give gravity of the offence.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that during investigation
blood stained shoes was recovered but the
shoes was not belonged to the appellant. He
further submits that a false recovery of
blood stained knife has been shown on the
pointing out of the appellant, whereas the
appellant did not have any knife.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the person who was
named in the F.I.R., namley, Pankaj Kumar
@ Rajnit Yadav by whose phone the last
call was made to the deceased was already
enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2141 of
2021 vide order dated 28.03.2022. The
copy of the said order is annexed as
Annexure 9 to the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application. He further submits
that the case of the appellant is not on the
worst footing than that of the other coaccused, Pankaj Kumar @ Rajnit Yadav
who has been already granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that accused/appellant is
languishing in jail since 08.09.2021, who
has no previous criminal history, and in
case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he
shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he
shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He
has further submitted that there is no
possibility of the appellant to intimidate or
pressurize the witnesses or any other
persons acquainted with the facts of the
present case.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant is in jail
since 08.09.2021 and has by now done a
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
substantial period of incarceration. In
support of his argument, he has placed
reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in
the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana,
2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe
in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under
:-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2.
The
appellants
have
been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants are
already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that ratio of law applicable
in above those cases is also applicable in
the case of the appellant, therefore, the
instant criminal appeal deserves to be
allowed and the order dated 15.01.2022
passed by the Special Judge Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities)
Act,
Barabanki
in
Bail
Application No.146 of 2022 ( Mantu Verma
Alias Vivek Verma Vs. State of U.P.),
arising out of Case Crime No.722/2021,
under Section 302, 120 B I.P.C. and Section
3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Barabanki, deserve to be set
aside
and
consequently,
the
accused/appellant deserves to be enlarged
on bail during pendency of the trial.

17. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the appellant have also been
placed
forth before
the
Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
appellant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
7 All. Mantu Verma @ Vivek Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
449
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is not having any
criminal history and he is in jail since
08.09.2021 and that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant
has drawn attention of this Court towards
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of
Uttrakhand
reported
in
(2020)
10
SCC,wherein in para 15 relying on the
judgment passed in Swaran Singh and
others Vs. State (2008) 8SCC 435 has
held as under:

"as per the F.I.R., the allegations of
abusing the informant were within the four
walls of her building. It is not the case of
the informant that there was any member of
the public (nor merely relatives or friends)
at the time of the incident in the house.
Therefore, the basic ingredient that the
words were uttered in any place within
public view is not made out. In the list of
witnesses appended to the charge-sheet,
certain witnesses are named but it could
not be said that those were the persons
present within the four walls of the
building. The offence is alleged to have
taken place within the four walls of the
building. Therefore, in view of the judgment
of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be
said to be a place within public view as
none was said of be present within the four
walls of the building as per the FIR and/or
charge-sheet."

19. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that no ingredients under
Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act is attracted
against the appellant, as no one has seen the
alleged incident committed by the appellant
at a public place or public view.

20. Per contra, Mrs. Nisha Srivastava,
learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
has vehemently opposed the prayer and
submits that the accused/ appellant is not
entitled to be enlarged on bail but did not
dispute this fact that it is a case of
circumstantial
evidence
and
no
any
independent witness has assign the role of
the appellant in committing the alleged
crime along with the co-accused Pankan
Kumar @ Rankit Yadav and she also did
not dispute this fact that the person who
was named in the F.I.R., namley, Pankaj
Kumar @ Rajnit Yadav by whose phone the
last call was made to the deceased was
already enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.
2141 of 2021 vide order dated 28.03.2022.
The same argument has been advanced by
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. for the State and submits that the
accused/ appellant is not entitled to get any
relief by this Court.

21. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, unlikelihood of early
conclusion of trial and also in absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence
and considering the fact that the name of
the appellant was not found place in the
F.I.R. nor there is any whisper in the F.I.R.
regarding the role of the appellant. At the
time of inquest also the name of the
appellant was not in picture, in the
statement of the complainant recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. first time the
name of the appellant came in picture and
the fact that the wife of the deceased used
to talk on mobile phone with the appellant
due to this reason there was always fight
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
took place between the deceased and his
wife and considering the fact the appellant
used to talk with the wife of the deceased it
cannot be said that the appellant is involved
in the alleged crime and further considering
that it is a case of circumstantial evidence
and no one has seen the appellant near the
dead body of the deceased nor any witness
has seen the appellant accompanying the
deceased nor it is a case of prosecution that
the mobile phone, which was recovered is
of the appellant and considering the fact
that the person who was named in the
F.I.R., namley, Pankaj Kumar @ Rajnit
Yadav by whose phone the last call was
made to the deceased was already enlarged
on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2141 of 2021
vide
order
dated
28.03.2022
and
considering the fact that no ingredients
under Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act is
attracted against the appellant, as no one
has seen the alleged incident committed by
the appellant at a public place or public
view and further considering the fact that
appellant is in jail since 08.09.2021 and has
now by done a substantial period of
detention and further considering the larger
mandate
of
the Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), Kamal
(supra), Takht Singh (supra), and Dataram
Singh vs. State of U.P. and another,
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, Hitesh
Verma (supra), this Court is of the view
that the learned court below has failed to
appreciate the material available on record,
the impugned order passed by the trial
court is liable to be set aside.

22. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed. Consequently, the order dated
order dated 15.01.2022 passed by the
Special Judge Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No.146
of 2022 ( Mantu Verma Alias Vivek Verma
Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case
Crime No.722/2021, under Section 302,
120 B I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST
Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District
Barabanki is hereby reversed and set aside.

23. Let the appellant, Mantu Verma
@ Vivek Verma, be enlarged on bail in
Case Crime No.722/2021, under Section
302, 120 B I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v)
SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Barabanki with the following
conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a
personal bond with two sureties each of
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear and
strictly comply following terms of bond
executed under section 437 sub section 3 of
Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellant shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he
is accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which he is suspected, and

(c) 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.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with
investigation /trial.

(iv) The appellant 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
7 All. Mukund Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
451
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 appellant shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed,
either personally or through his counsel. In
case of his absence, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A
of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the
liberty of bail during trial, in order to
secure his presence, proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the
appellant 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 Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain
present, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
appellant 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.

24. The trial court is also directed to
expedite the trial of the aforesaid case,
within a period of one year from today, by
following the provisions of Section 309
Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in
case there is no other legal impediment.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 451
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 1290 of 2023

Mukund Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Jaysingh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 323, 504, 506 & 325 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 14-A,
3(1)(r), (s) - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 320 - In instant case,
setting aside of impugned order has been
prayed for on basis of compromise - In
compromise, incident alleged to have
transpired, based on which FIR registered,
not contested rather admitted that quarrel
had ensued between parties that led to
institution
of
instant
proceedings
-
Conflict was that informant side not doing
their job instead taking away tractortrolly to upload bricks, they were abused,
beaten and threatened on their caste
indicative
words
by
appellants

-
Contention by appellants that both parties
known to each other and are neighbours,
due to some misunderstanding quarrel
took place between them, no intention to
hurt
informant,
complainant
amicably
settled disputes with appellants vide
compromise-cum-settlement, out of his
own free will, without coercion. (Para 3, 4,
12, 27)

Held, offence preceded by criminal intent
of humiliating victim on basis of his caste
and committed solely on account of caste
of victim - Compromise does not indicate
settlement
of
any
civil
dispute
and
possibility of informant side being coerced
to enter into compromise cannot be ruled
out as appellant No.2 has criminal history
of two cases and appellant no.4 has
criminal history of 14 case - No rationale
as
to
why
continuation
of
legal