# Piyush Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 590
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 109 of 2025
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/piyush-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53946
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee for its utilization. If the said amount is not deposited, the Registrar General shall issue a
letter to the District Magistrate/Collector, Prayagraj for recovery of the said amount as land revenue
from the writ petitioner who shall recover it and transmit to the Registrar General of this Court for
its utilization as stated aforesaid.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 590
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 109 of 2025

Piyush Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether Opposite Party No.2 violated conditions of anticipatory bail by seeking adjournments, thereby
justifying cancellation of bail.
HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections - 205, 317, 439, - Indian Penal Code
(IPC) - Sections - 120-B, 406, 420 - Bail cancellation application - filed for seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail - granted to accused opposite party no. 2 - by the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi -
Applicant pleaded that the accused misused bail conditions by seeking repeated adjournments and not
cooperating with trial - Opposite party argued that only exemption applications were filed, not adjournments,
and proceedings were not delayed - Distinction between adjournment applications and exemption applications
- Court finds that exemption applications are distinct from adjournments, no violation of bail conditions
occurred - reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. and Rameshwar Yadav)
- Held, Exemption from personal attendance does not delay proceedings - there is no ground to cancel bail -
accordingly, the bail cancellation application is rejected - with directions issued to the Registrar General of
High Court to circulate judgment to judicial officers to avoid confusion between adjournment and exemption
applications.(Para - 16, 17, 18)
Application rejected. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401,
Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608.

LIST OF ACTS

Indian Penal Code (IPC),
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Bail cancellation - Anticipatory Bail - Exemption Application - Adjournment Application - Cooperation with Trial
- Bail Conditions - Misuse of Bail.

CASE ARISING FROM
1 All. Piyush Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591
Complaint Case No. 115562 of 2023, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Pradeep Verma, Shri Chandra Dutt,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri N.I. Jafri (Senior Advocate), assisted by Shri Ali Jamal Khan and learned
A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The application in hand has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Piyush Verma seeking
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused / opposite party no.2 in Complaint Case No.
115562 of 2023, under Sections 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi vide
order dated 31.5.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi.

2. Heard Shri Pradeep Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri Ali Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as
the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The facts giving rise to the present application for cancellation of anticipatory bail to the
accused / opposite party no.2 are that the applicant had filed a Complaint Case No. 115562 of 2023
against Smt. Pooja Grover and her husband Umang Grover for the offences under Sections 420,
406, 120-B IPC before the Court concerned and after recording the statements of complainant and
the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the Court concerned passed an order dated
4.11.2023 summoning the aforesaid accused persons to face trial for the offence under Sections
420, 406 and 120-B IPC which was challenged before this Court by way of Application U/S 482
No. 20040 of 2024 and this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 disposed of the said application and
the said summoning order was set-aside and the matter was remitted back to the Court concerned to
pass order on the point of summoning afresh, expeditiously in accordance with law. Subsequently,
the trial Court passed an order dated 24.2.2025 summoning both the accused persons to face trial
for the offences under Sections 406 and 120-B IPC. In pursuance of the said order the opposite
party no.2 moved an application seeking anticipatory bail before the trial Court, which was
allowed. Feeling aggrieved with the subsequent conduct of the accused / opposite party no.2
causing misuse of the order granting anticipatory bail, the present application for cancellation of
anticipatory bail has been moved.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are credible
evidence against the accused / opposite party no.2 on record. Specific allegations have been
levelled against the opposite party no.2 in the complaint and also in the statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. It is also submitted that one of the conditions for granting anticipatory
bail to the opposite party no.2 was that she will fully cooperate with the trial of this case and no
unnecessary adjournment shall be sought by her.

5. It is also submitted that after grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the accused / opposite
party no.2 she is not cooperating with the trial of this case and on two successive occasions
adjournment applications were moved by her, hence, she is violating the condition for anticipatory
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bail granted to her by the Court concerned. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the accused /
opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused / opposite party no.2
opposed the prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail and submitted that the case has not been
fixed for evidence so far and two dates on which the adjournment applications are said to be moved
were not fixed for evidence. It is also submitted that on the said dates exemption applications were
moved and not adjournment applications. It is further submitted that the accused / opposite party
no.2 is ready and willing to fully cooperate with the trial court and she is in fact cooperating with
the trial Court and the judicial proceedings have not been hampered on account of her alleged noncooperation so far.

7. It is further urged that the case was not fixed for evidence on the date when the exemption
application was moved. It is further submitted that even the evidence may be recorded in the
absence of the accused and the accused / opposite party no.2 will have no objection. Since the
accused / opposite party no.2 has already appeared before the Court, her personal appearance could
be exempted by the trial court and moreover it is a complaint case. He also undertakes that the
accused is always ready and willing to participate into the proceedings of the case before the Court
and if any exemption is granted by the Court to her, her non-appearance before the trial court shall
not come in the proceedings of the trial, as she would be present before the Court through counsel.
There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. In
support of his submissions with regard to dispense with the presence of the accused / opposite party
no.2 before the Court, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused / opposite party no.2 has
placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs.
Bhiwani Denim @ Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401 and Rameshwar Yadav vs. State of
Bihar, (2018) 4 SCC 608.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the entire record carefully.

9. Before dealing with the matter, it is desirable to quote the provisions of Sections 205 CrPC
and 317 CrPC relevant in order to disposal of the case in hand, which are as under :

"205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.

(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense
with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But the
Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case, may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings,
direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the
manner hereinbefore provided."

"317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain
cases.
1 All. Piyush Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
593

(1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is
satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is
not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in
Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his
attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage
of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.

(2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or
Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to
be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be
taken up or tried separately."

10. While granting anticipatory bail to the accused / opposite party no.2, the Court concerned
vide order dated 31.5.2025 imposed following conditions :

"1. जअभयुक्ता ज वचारर् में पूर्र् सहयोग करेगी तथा अनावश्य क स् थ गन प्रस् तु त नही करेगी।

2. जअभयुक्ता ज कसी भी व्य ज क्त िो इस मामले के तथ्यों से जपररचत हो को ज कसी प्र कार का प्र लोभन नहीं देगीऔर न ही ज कसी
प्र कार से पताज ड़ त करेगी, िमकायेगी।

3. जअभयुक्ता जभवष्य में जयद ज कसी अन्द्य आपराज िक जगजतजवि में जसम्म ज लत होती है तो यह उसके जअग्र मABAILC No.
109 of 20254िमानत के ज नरस्ती करर् का पयार्प्ण आिार होगा।

4.जअभयुक्ता जअग्र म िमानत पर रहने की अजवि में भारत देश से बाहर नही िायेगी।

11. This is the first condition for alleged wilful violation of which the present application for
cancellation of anticipatory bail has been moved.

12. An application to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused is only meant that
for certain reasons the accused is not present before the Court but on his /her behalf his/her counsel
is present over there to attend the Court and to participate in the proceedings taken before the Court
on a particular date but it never means that by way of an exemption application the accused wants
to adjourn the proceedings of the case on the pretext of his personal absence for certain reasons. On
the other hand, an adjournment application is meant to postpone the proceedings of the case on a
particular day on a temporary basis for some other day on any ground taken by the accused in the
said application. Hence, whenever an adjournment application is moved by the accused there is no
iota of doubt that on a particular day the accused is not willing and ready, whatsoever be the
reasons thereof, to participate in the proceedings of the case on a particular day and such conduct of
the accused can be taken by the Court as an attempt to prolong the proceedings of the case on some
pretext. Since to participate in the proceedings of a trial on the part of an accused is a binding
condition for bail, the accused, who has got bail from a Court on the aforesaid condition, cannot be
permitted to get the proceedings of the case adjourned on a particular day only at his own will.
However, on sufficient and satisfactory ground an adjournment application may be allowed by the
Court but at the same time it provides a chance to the prosecution to question the conduct of the
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused to get the case adjourned. The Court ought to have been strict in its view and approach to
hold that repeated adjournment applications are moved with the object only to get the trial delayed
and that certainly amounts to an infringement and violation of the conditions imposed upon him
while providing him opportunity of bail. On the other hand, however, if the personal presence of an
accused is required in view of the Court before it e.g. at the stage of evidence where question of
identification in dock is required the application to dispense with personal attendance of the
accused before the Court may be rejected as well but so far as the case in hand is concerned, as
submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused / opposite party no.2, the case
was not fixed for evidence on the date when exemption application was moved. The reason for
absence of the accused / opposite party no.2 has been mentioned in the exemption application
which shows that the exemption was sought for on the ground that accused / opposite party no.2
alongwith her husband, who is also an accused in this case, was out-of-station and that was the
reason for her absence before the Court on the date fixed. The submissions made by the accused /
opposite party no.2 finds strength from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. (supra) and Rameshwar Yadav (supra).

13. In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. case (supra) the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was as
to whether the application for exemption from personal attendance moved by the accused could be
treated as one moved under Section 205 CrPC or under Section 317 CrPC. The High Court in that
case had observed that the accused had already appeared before the Court after obtaining the order
of pre arrest bail and furnishing bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Court, he was not
entitled to file an application under Section 205 CrPC at subsequent stage after appearing before
the Court. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the said observation was factually
incorrect. The power of Magistrate under Section 317 CrPC was also discussed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in connection with the discretion of Court to exempt a person from personal
appearance and in crux it was concluded that there is no impediment on the power of the Magistrate
to consider the application of an accused for his exemption from personal appearance.

14. Same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court later in the case of
Rameshwar Yadav (supra).

15. In fact seeking temporary suspension or postponement of a legal proceeding on a
particular date by way of filing an adjournment application and thereby to make a request for a later
date by way of filing an adjournment application is different from that of an application seeking
exemption from personal appearance for any valid reason like distance or illness etc. and in that
way the party seeks an exemption from any obligation in a legal manner. Here lies the difference
between an adjournment application and an exemption application and the exemption application is
not meant to avoid the legal proceedings to be taken on a particular date, time or location.

16. From a perusal of the application dated 10.11.2025, which is annexed with the
supplementary affidavit, it is evident that it is not an adjournment application but it is simply an
application for exemption from appearance before the Court moved by accused / opposite party
no.2. As mentioned above, there is a huge difference between an application for exemption of
appearance and adjournment of proceedings. It appears that the applicant has been unable to
understand the said difference.
1 All. Suresh Lodhi Vs. State of U.P.
595

17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in my view, there is no force in the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. There is no good ground to cancel the
anticipatory bail granted to the accused / opposite party no.2 as no violation of any of the
conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail by the court to the accused has been made by
her. The application is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.

18. Before parting, it would be apt to note that the Court often comes across the cases where it
appears that although nature, scope and object of an application seeking exemption of the personal
attendance of an accused on a particular date is different from that of an application to adjourn the
proceedings but the Presiding Officers often get confused and an exemption application is treated
as an adjournment application by them which is not the correct notion of law. Hence, to remind
them of the real nature and object of the application of both kinds, the Registrar General of this
Court is directed to circulate copy of this judgment to all District and Sessions Judges, Principal
Judges of Family Courts, and Presiding Officers of Commercial Courts and further to all the
Judicial Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh for information and compliance.

 19. This Court is thankful to Shri Pradeep Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri N.I.
Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ali Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and Sri Nitesh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Akash Verma, Research
Associate of this Court for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 595
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6338 of 2025

Suresh Lodhi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the accused-applicant (who has killed his wife by strangulation) is entitled to bail in the second bail
application?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) - Section 161 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(B.N.S.) - Section 103(1), - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 193 - Second Bail application - filed by
accused-husband - seeking bail in a criminal proceedings initiated under Section 103(1) B.N.S. - earlier his,
first Bail was not pressed, since at that time prosecution evidence is going on - FIR - offence of wife's death
by strangulation - investigation revealed video-graphed statement of minor daughter implicating father -
inquest and post-mortem confirmed ante-mortem strangulation - trial initiated, witnesses examined, some
turned hostile - applicant pleaded that hostile witnesses entitle him to bail - court find that - (i) Second bail
application was filed without awaiting outcome of trial, - Hostile witnesses do not automatically entitle the