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

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 676
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 2021
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48146
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Scheduled Caste &
Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989-Section 14(A)(1) , Section 3(1) r
s & 3(2)(va) - Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 406, 419, 420, 448, 323, 354,
504 & 506- dispute regarding purchase of
land which was already sold to another
person-inordinate delay in FIR-no time,
date or place is mentioned in the FIRseveral civil disputes between the parties
are pending-appellant is in jail for a long
time and he is not a previous convict-he is
required in a case in which maximum
sentence is not more than seven yearsHence, there exist no circumstances/
factors. justifying denial of bail. (Para 1 to
20)

B. Some of such circumstances should
keep in mind while granting bail such as
nature and gravity of charges, severity of
punishment,
danger
of
accused
absconding if released on bail, character,
behaviour, likelihood of offence being
repeated, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tempered with etc. (Para
15)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the court concerned for necessary action
and compliance in accordance with law.
----------
(2022)02ILR A676
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1406 of 2021

Satish Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Varun Chandra, Hemant Kumar Mishra,
Sunil Dixit

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Abhishek Misra, Satendra Kumar
(Singh)

A. Criminal Law - Scheduled Caste &
Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989-Section 14(A)(1) , Section 3(1) r
s & 3(2)(va) - Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 406, 419, 420, 448, 323, 354,
504 & 506- dispute regarding purchase of
land which was already sold to another
person-inordinate delay in FIR-no time,
date or place is mentioned in the FIRseveral civil disputes between the parties
are pending-appellant is in jail for a long
time and he is not a previous convict-he is
required in a case in which maximum
sentence is not more than seven yearsHence, there exist no circumstances/
factors. justifying denial of bail. (Para 1 to
20)

B. Some of such circumstances should
keep in mind while granting bail such as
nature and gravity of charges, severity of
punishment,
danger
of
accused
absconding if released on bail, character,
behaviour, likelihood of offence being
repeated, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tempered with etc. (Para
15)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. State thru C.B.I Vs Amar Mani Tripathi (2005)
8 SCC 21

2. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs
C.B.I. Thru its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for appellant, learned AGA
as well as Shri Abhishek Misra, learned
counsel for respondent and perused the
record.

2. 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 13.09.2021 passed by Special
Judge, (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in bail
application 5852 of 2021 arising out of
Case Crime No. 575 of 2019, under
Sections 406, 419, 420, 448, 323, 354, 504,
506, 120-B IPC and Sections 3(1) r s &
3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-
Wazirganj, District- Lucknow, whereby the
bail application of the appellant/applicant
has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that the first informant lodged the
FIR on 09.10.2019 with allegation that the
first informant purchased the plot from
Parvatiya Sahkari Awas Samiti in the year
2008 situated in Village Nizamuddinpur,
Tehsil and District Lucknow. The real
owner of the plot bearing Khasra No.2 was
Moharram Ali, who had already sold the
whole area of Khasra no.2 to the Samiti by
2 All. Satish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
677
registered sale deed. After death of
Moharram Ali, land grabber-appellant by
hatching conspiracy purchased the said
land from the legal heirs of late Moharram
Ali by forged sale deed. Thus, the F.I.R.
was lodged against the appellant and other
co-accused under Sections 406, 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 448, 120-B, 352 IPC. But
after arrest of the appellant, remand of the
appellant
has
been
taken
by
the
investigating officer under Sections 406,
419, 420, 448, 323, 354, 504, 506, 120-B
IPC and Section 3(1) r s and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
this case. Prior to the alleged incident, the
appellant is not known to the complainant
that she belongs to SC/ST. As per FIR
version, no allegation of SC/ST Act is
made out against the appellant. It is further
submitted that the appellant and other coaccused have purchased parts of the
aforesaid land by three different sale deed
from the legal heirs of late Moharram Ali
namely Mohd. Aleem, Mohd. Majeed and
Smt. Jareen. Thereafter, the name of the
appellant has been mutated in the revenue
records. After mutation, several civil
litigation were run between the parties and
later
on,
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial), Lucknow has cancelled the name
of appellant. Being aggrieved from the
order of the Additional Commissioner,
Lucknow, the appellant filed a writ petition
before this Court bearing No.13741 (MS)
of 2019, in which this Court directed that
the parties shall maintain status quo vide
order dated 29.5.2019 (Annexure-3).

5. Learned counsel for appellant
further submits that statement of the
complainant was recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. on 4.8.2020, in which no
specific role is assigned to the appellant
and general allegation has been levelled
against appellant. The investigating officer
further
recorded
the
statement
of
complainant on 25.8.2020, in which she
improved the prosecution case by making
several allegations against the accused
persons. It is further submitted that after the
death of of Moharram Ali, his legal heirs
namely Mohd. Aleem, Mohd. Majeed and
Smt. Jareen have mutated their name in
Khasra No.2 measuring 1.294 hectare and
after mutation, they have sold the said land
to the appellant and thereafter the name of
appellant was also mutated in revenue
records.

6. Learned counsel for appellant
further submits that on perusal of evidence,
it transpires that the appellant is the
bonafide purchaser of the land in question.
It is further submitted that at the time of
purchasing of the land in question, the
appellant has no knowledge that the said
land has already been sold by late
Moharram Ali. Thus, the appellat is also
sufferer.

7. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that no specific role is assigned to
the appellant for hatching any conspiracy.
Several civil disputes between the parties
are pending. The trial court without
appreciating the evidence available on
record wrongly rejected the application of
the appellant. It is further submitted that the
appellant is not a previous convict and he is
languishing in jail since 13.8.2021. So,
learned counsel prays to set aside the order
passed by the trial court and allow the
appeal.

8. Learned AGA as well as learned
counsel for respondent has vehemently
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for
appellant and submitted that the appellant
is very well known that the land in question
is already sold by Late Moharram Ali. The
appellant in connivance with one Gyan
Prakash succeeded the land and got their
name entered in the revenue records. The
appellant
along
with
Gyan
Prakash
purchased the land from legal heirs of late
Moharram Ali, even after the knowledge
that the land had already been sold and
construction was raised. It is also submitted
that the disputed facts have been placed
before this Court and the writ petition
bearing No.13741 (MS) of 2019 has been
dismissed by this Court vide order dated
1.10.2021. It is further submitted that the
appellant and their associates have full
knowledge that the land in question had
already been sold and purchaser and first
informant have constructed their houses,
but by hatching conspiracy with co-accused
succeeded to get entered his name in the
revenue records and within one month, the
accused-appellant-land grabber got the
land.

9. Learned counsel for first informant
further submits that appellant withheld the
fact that there are several criminal history
against appellant and on this account, bail
application of appellant is liable to be
rejected. Learned counsel has drawn
attention of the Court towards order of this
Court bearing Bail No.43160 of 2020. The
relevant portion of which is reproduced
hereunder:

"10. On the point of criminal
history, this Court has perused the free
copy of the order dated 24.9.2020 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 6, Firozabad in Bail Application No.
1403 of 2020, CNR No. UPFD03867-2020,
Uday Pratap urf Dau vs. State of U.P. by
which the bail application of the applicant
has been rejected by the court below. The
same is annexed as annexure no. 11 to the
affidavit. The said order does not attend
about the criminal history of the applicant.
In the said order while mentioning the
arguments as raised on behalf of the
applicant,
it
has
specifically
been
mentioned that the applicant is "not a
previous convict." There is no discussion
by the court about the said argument in the
order rejecting bail of the applicant.

11. Not only in this case but in
many other cases it is seen that there is an
averment made that the applicant/accused
is not involved in any other criminal case
before this Court. The order rejecting bail
by the courts below is silent about the
criminal
antecedents
of
the
applicant/accused but on the basis of
instructions
of
learned
Additional
Government Advocate of this Court or on
the basis of instruction of learned counsels
for the first informant, it transpires that the
applicant/accused has previous criminal
history. When the learned counsels are
countered with the same it becomes
embarrassing for them and is also an
impediment in deciding the said bail
application due to the non-disclosure of the
criminal history of the accused. Although
the criminal antecedents of the accused are
not the sole and decisive factor for decision
of bail applications but the same needs to
be
considered
while
deciding
an
application for bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C. as per the legislative mandate of
Section 437 Cr.P.C.

12. This Court directs the courts
below in the State of Uttar Pradesh to
attend the issue of criminal antecedent(s) of
accused persons while deciding bail
applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and
2 All. Satish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
679
give a complete detail of the criminal
antecedent(s),
if
any,
of
the
applicant(s)/accused before them or record
the fact that there are no criminal
antecedent(s) of the said person(s) if there
are none."

10. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that at the time of filing of the
appeal, the affidavit is sworn by wife of the
appellant and she has no knowledge about
criminal history of appellant and also it is
not mentioned in the impugned order
passed by the trial court. So, learned
counsel could not explain the criminal
history of appellant.

11. Criminal history of appellant is
filed by learned AGA as well as learned
counsel for respondent by means of counter
affidavit, which is as follows:

"(i) Case Crime No.113/13, under
Sections 323/504/506 IPC, Police Station-
Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(ii) Case Crime No.188/13, under
Sections 147/452/323/506/392 IPC, Police
Station- Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(iii) Case Crime No.235/13, under
Sections 323/504/506 IPC, Police Station-
Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(iv) Case Crime No.121/13, under
Sections
444/427/504/506
IPC,
Police
Station- Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(v) Case Crime No.449/16, under
Sections 419/420/467/468/471/406/504 IPC,
Police Station- Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(vi) Case Crime No.590/16, under
Sections 406/420/467/468/471 IPC, Police
Station- Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(vii) Case Crime No.503/18,
under
Sections
406/420
IPC,
Police
Station- Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(viii) Case Crime No.687/18,
under
Sections
406/420
IPC,
Police
Station- Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(ix) Case Crime No.695/18, under
Sections 504/506 IPC, Police Station-
Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(x) under Section Gunda Act,
Police Station- Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(xi) Case Crime No.49/19, under
Sections 406/420 IPC, Police Station-
Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(xii) Case Crime No.40/19, under
Sections 323/504/447 IPC, Police Station-
Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

(xiii) Case Crime No.281/20,
under Sections 406/420/120B/427 IPC,
Police Station- Wazirganj, Lucknow.

(xiv) Case Crime No.575/19,
under Sections 406/ 419/ 420/ 448/ 323/
504/506/354/120B IPC and 3(1)da, dha,
3(2)a of SC/ST Act, Police Station-
Wazirganj, Lucknow."

12. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that all the above-mentioned cases
are pending before the trial court and on the
basis of criminal history, the appeal cannot
be rejected.

13. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record. On
perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the
FIR is lodged after inordinate delay. No
time, date or place is mentioned in the
FIR. On perusal of the entire record, it
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reveals that several civil disputes between
the parties are pending. The appellant is
languishing in jail since 13.8.2021 and
the maximum sentence provided in this
Section is not more than seven years. All
the criminal cases against the appellant as
mentioned by learned AGA as well as
learned
counsel
for
respondent
are
pending. Apart from this, the appellant is
not a previous convict.

14. Although, learned A.G.A. as well
as learned counsel for respondent opposed
the prayer for bail but could not place
anything before this Court so as to bring
any circumstance existing, justifying denial
of bail to accused-applicant when he is
already in jail for a long time.

15. Supreme Court in State though
C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi 2005 (8)
SCC 21 has also observed that normally
bail should have been granted unless there
exist circumstances/factors justifying denial
thereof. Some of such circumstances have
been stated as under:

"(i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the
charge;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
accused
absconding or fleeing if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence
being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail."

16. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @
Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director,
2007 (1) SCC 70 while recognizing that
personal liberty is a valuable constitutional
right recognized under Article 21, Court
observed that while considering question of
bail, judicial approach balancing personal
liberty as well as interest of the society and
also other relevant factors must be
observed. Court further held that personal
liberty of an accused or convict is also a
fundamental right but if the circumstances
so justify, it can be eclipsed. The length for
which an accused has remained in jail
before conviction, i.e., during investigation
or trial, is a relevant consideration for the
reason
that
in
case
ultimately
the
incumbent is found not guilty, i.e. having
not committed any offence, it would be a
travesty of justice to keep such a person in
jail for years together and denial of
personal liberty in such a case though may
be mitigated by awarding appropriate
compensation but cannot appropriately be
compensated at all. Simply because Court
takes a long time in trial, it will not be
justified to keep a person in jail on the
ground that Court or the prosecution is not
efficient enough in completing trial in a
reasonably short period and the incumbent
must remain in jail, even though ultimately
he may be found innocent. In fact, if a
person is acquitted after a long and delayed
trial, though incumbent was throughout in
jail, even Judicial Officer would be having
a feeling of contrition facing a situation
where a person has served sufficiently a
long term in imprisonment though, is found
innocent and ultimately acquitted. No
2 All. Satish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
681
uniform principle can be laid down since
every
matter
would
depend
on
the
circumstances of each case and it cannot be
said that a person has remained in jail for
long time, for that reason alone bail must
be granted, but the period during which an
incumbent has been remained in jail, during
investigation or trial is a relevant factor.
These are certain guidelines laid down in
State through C.B.I. v. Amar Mani
Tripathi (supra) were reiterated in Rajesh
Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI
(supra).

17. In view of above and looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case, I think it appropriate to release
appellant/applicant on bail.

18. Impugned order dated 13.9.2021
is set aside.

19. The appeal is hereby allowed.

20. Let appellant- Satish Verma be
enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number on his furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
following additional conditions, which are
being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The appellant shall not tamper
with the evidence of witnesses and shall not
commit any offence.

(ii) 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
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(iii) The appellant shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through her
counsel. In case of his absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case, the appellant misuses
the liberty of bail during trial and 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.

(v) The appellant shall remain
present, in person, 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.

(vi) The accused/appellant shall
file computer generated copy of such order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad.

(vii) The computer generated
copy of such order shall be self attested by
the counsel of the party concerned.

(viii)
The
concerned
Court/
Authority/Official
shall
verify
the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)02ILR A682
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5949 of 2010

Bhao Prakash ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Krishna Gopal, Sri Prabhat Pandey, Sri
Suneel Kumar Tiwari, Sri Gyan Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-challenge
to-conviction- delay in FIR-prosecutrix
(minor) had been raped by her own
father-testimony of PW-4(victim) proved
beyond reasonable doubt according to
injury report and the same has been
corroborated by PW-3(mother) and PW5(grand-mother)-an
application
for
altercation was moved by PW-3, she kept
mum on the rape issue, but in the
compelling circumstances she lodged FIR
against the appellant as she had been
thrown away out of the house-She tried to
hide this occurrence being made public,
there was no ulterior motive behind itThe testimony of PW-3(mother) and PW4(victim)
had
withstood
wrath
of
strenuous
cross-examination
by
the
defence but held its foot firmly to the
ground-non-description of commission of
rape in earlier application would not cause
any adverse impact to the case of
prosecution-Trial court rightly recorded
findings
of
conviction
and
awarded
appropriate sentence.(Para 1 to 32)
The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record of this appeal.

2. By way of instant criminal appeal,
challenge has been made to the judgment
and order of conviction dated 05.08.2010
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.5, Bareilly, in Session Trial No.174 of
2008, State Vs. Bhao Prakash, arising out
of Case Crime No.964 of 2007, under
Section
376
I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Nawabganj, District Bareilly whereby the
appellant
has
been
sentenced
to
imprisonment for life coupled with fine
Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation to
suffer additional imprisonment for one
year.

3. Facts as incarnated refers to the
context that the first information report was
lodged by one Veerwati (mother of the
victim) and (wife of the accused-appellant),
resident of Bahor Nagla, Police Station
Nawabganj, District Bareilly against the
accused-appellant on 14.09.2007 at 2:25
p.m. regarding the incident of rape having
been committed by the accused-appellant
who is none other than father of the victim
wherein
it
was
described
that
on
03.08.2007 around 11:00 p.m. up to 12:00
in the midnight, the accused-appellant
came to the house in drunken condition and
took away forcibly his daughter in his room
who was sleeping with her grand-mother
Durga Devi, and committed rape upon her.
The incident was witnessed apart from the
informant by the grand-mother Durga Devi.