# Suraj Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 885
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11345 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suraj-verma-v-state-of-u-p-47910
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 363Initially F.I.R. lodged against unknown personsno whisper about the Applicant in the F.I.R.-
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after the
dead body was recovered-false story made by
the complainant- after taking an overall view -
period of detention already undergone -nature
of evidence and absence of any convincing
material
to
indicate
tampering
with
the
evidence-in
F.I.R.-no
whisper
regarding
complicity of the Applicant-no external injury
found on body-deceased recovered from wellcase of suicide.

Bail Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

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

## Text

11 All. Suraj Verma Vs. State of U.P.
885
accordance with the settled principles, so
that the claimants may be awarded just
compensation. Accordingly, the award
stands
revised
and
redetermined
as
stipulated below:

Sl.
Particulars
Amount
(i)
Monthly
Income
of
the
deceased
₹52,041/-
(ii)
Monthly
Income
+
Future
Prospects (monthly income x
20%) = 52,041+ 10,408
₹62,449/-
(iii)
Annual Income of the deceased
= (62,449 x 12) - Income Tax =
7,49,388 - 45,500
₹7,03,888/-
(iv)
Annual Dependency = Annual
Income - one-third deduction
towards personal expenses of
the deceased = 703,888 -
2,34,629
₹4,69,259/-
(v)
Total dependency = Annual
Dependency
x
Applied
Multiplier = 4,69,259 x 11
₹51,61,849/-
(vi)
Claimant's entitlement under the
conventional heads = Loss of
Estate + Funeral Expenses +
Dependents' consortium (15,000
+ 15,000+ 40,000 x 2)
₹1,10,000/-
(vii)
Total Compensation = Total
Dependency
+
Claimant's
entitlement
under
the
conventional heads
₹52,71,849/-

39. Accordingly, the impugned award
passed by the Tribunal is modified and the
compensation awarded enhanced to a total
sum of ₹52,71,849/- (Rupees Fifty Two
Lac,
Seventy
One
Thousand,
Eight
Hundred and Forty Nine only). The
compensation would carry Simple Interest
at the rate of 7% per annum from the date
of institution of the claim petition, until
realisation. However, the sum of money
already deposited (paid or invested in terms
of the impugned award or interim orders of
this Court) shall be adjusted.

40. This appeal is disposed of in
terms of the above orders.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 885
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11345 of
2022

Suraj Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anand
Prakash
Pandey,
Desh
Raj
Chaurasiya

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 363Initially F.I.R. lodged against unknown personsno whisper about the Applicant in the F.I.R.-
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after the
dead body was recovered-false story made by
the complainant- after taking an overall view -
period of detention already undergone -nature
of evidence and absence of any convincing
material
to
indicate
tampering
with
the
evidence-in
F.I.R.-no
whisper
regarding
complicity of the Applicant-no external injury
found on body-deceased recovered from wellcase of suicide.

Bail Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Dataram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & anr., reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of
State is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Anand Prakash Pandey,
the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Alok Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

3. The applicant, Suraj Verma, has
moved the present bail application seeking
bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under
Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj,
District Pratapgarh.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in the present case
due to enmity and property dispute situated
in the same village.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section
363 I.P.C. in unknown. There is no any
whisper about the applicant in the F.I.R.
and even though F.I.R. was lodged after
two days of the alleged incident of missing
of minor daughter of complainant, that too,
without any plausible explanation of delay.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that statement of the
complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded on 26.05.2022 after the dead body
of the victim was recovered from a well
wherein he developed his case and false story
has been made that applicant and the victim
were in relation and false promise of
marriage was made by the applicant with her,
and when the applicant had refused to marry
with the victim then she committed suicide.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that entire case is built up
by the complainant after the legal advice
and afterthought. No such incident, as
alleged by the complainant in his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., took
place.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that in the postmortem of
the deceased no external injury was found
on her entire body and cause of death was
found to be asphyxia due to ante mortem
drowning.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that reference of mobile
No. 9935885772 which was given by the
complainant in his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not belong
to the applicant and he never talked with
the deceased on her mobile as alleged by
the complainant. The Investigating Agency
also failed to collect any evidence against
the applicant regarding alleged mobile
number and there is no proof that the said
number belongs to the applicant. It is also a
case of the applicant that the said mobile
number and simcard was never recovered
from the possession of application. Further
the case of applicant is that he was neither
having any love affair with the deceased,
nor he has made any promise of marriage
with the deceased. The victim has never
moved any complaint to any authority that
application was in relation with her on
giving false promise of marriage and now
he had refused for the same. The entire
story was developed by the complainant
after recovery of dead body of the deceased
from the well, otherwise there must be
some whisper in the F.I.R. regarding the
relation of applicant with the deceased. The
main dispute regarding false implication of
applicant is that there is a land dispute
between the family members of the
applicant and the deceased. The said land is
adjacent to each other, which is evident
11 All. Suraj Verma Vs. State of U.P.
887
from Khatauni of the property, which fact
has been stated in para-11 of the affidavit
filed in support of the bail application.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that it is also a case of the
applicant that earlier the mother of the
deceased had also threatened the mother of
the applicant that she will implicate the
applicant in a case, regarding which mother
of applicant has moved an application on
19.10.2021 before the concerned police
station on 19.10.2021, copy of which has
been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit
filed in support of the bail application.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that statements of interested
witnesses cannot be said to be reliable as
they have given false statement in support
of the prosecution case. The age of the
deceased was in between 17 years and 22
days on the date of occurrence as per her
educational certificate.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that applicant has never
abetted the victim to commit suicide. From
perusal of F.I.R. and from the statement of
complainant and other witnesses no case
under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out. Even
prosecution has failed to proof that case
under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out as the
essential ingredients for proving the said
provisions are not fulfilled either on perusal
of the F.I.R. or on perusal of statements of
complainant and witnesses. The entire
prosecution story is false and fabricated
and has been cooked up with malafide
intention, therefore, the applicant is entitled
to be released on bail by this Court
sympathetically.

13. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the applicant 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
applicant 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
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is not having any
criminal history, which fact has been stated
in para-18 of the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application. The applicant is in
jail since 04.06.2022 and that in the wake
of heavy pendency of cases in the Court,
there is blinking chances of any early
conclusion of trial as till date not a single
witness has been examined.

14. Learned A.G.A. while opposing
the prayer for bail.

15. 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, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence, considering the fact that in
the F.I.R. there is no whisper regarding
complicity of applicant; in his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after
the dead body of the victim was recovered
from a well the complainant developed his
case by stating that applicant and the victim
were in relation and false promise of
marriage was made by the applicant with
her, and when the applicant had refused to
marry with the victim then she committed
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suicide; in the postmortem of the deceased
no external injury was found on her entire
body and cause of death was found to be
asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning;
reference of mobile No. 9935885772 which
was given by the complainant is also not
belong to the applicant, he never talked
with the deceased on her mobile as alleged
by the complainant and the Investigating
Agency also failed to collect any evidence
against the applicant regarding alleged
mobile number and there is no proof that
the said number belongs to the applicant
and the said mobile number and simcard
was never recovered from the possession of
applicant; the entire story was developed
by the complainant after recovery of dead
body of the deceased from the well,
otherwise there must be some whisper in
the F.I.R. regarding the relation of applicant
with the deceased; there appears force in
the submission of the learned counsel for
the applicant that main dispute regarding
false implication of applicant is that there is
a land dispute between the family members
of the applicant and the deceased, which is
evident from Khatauni of the property,
which fact has been stated in para-11 of the
affidavit filed in support of the bail
application; it is also a case of the applicant
that earlier mother of the deceased had also
threatened the mother of the applicant that
she will implicate the applicant in a case,
regarding which mother of applicant has
moved an application on 19.10.2021 before
the concerned police station on 19.10.2021,
copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6
to the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application; prosecution has failed to proof
that case under Section 306 I.P.C. is made
out as the essential ingredients for proving
the said provisions are not fulfilled either
on perusal of the F.I.R. or on perusal of
statements of complainant and witnesses;
and 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 Dataram Singh vs.
State of UP and another, reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view
that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

16. The prayer for bail is granted. The
application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant, Suraj Verma,
involved in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022,
under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station
Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, be enlarged on
bail on his executing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned on the
following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make
any attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself deems
it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case, the applicant misuses
the liberty of bail and in order to secure his
presence proclamation under Section 82
Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant 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.

(6) The applicant shall remain present,
in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed
for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge
11 All. Abbu Sahma Vs. State of U.P.
889
and (iii) recording of statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court
default of this condition is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of
his bail and proceed against him in accordance
with law.

(7) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded from
the official website of High Court Allahabad or
certified copy issued from the Registry of the
High Court, Allahabad.

(8) 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.

18. It may be observed that in the event of
any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court
below shall be at liberty to proceed for the
cancellation of applicant's bail.

19. It is clarified that the observations, if
any, made in this order are strictly confined to the
disposal of the bail application and must not be
construed to have any reflection on the ultimate
merit of the case.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 889
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11656 of
2022

Abbu Sahma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Farooq Ayoob, Km. Pooja Tiwari
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Bail-Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
304 & 308 -Applicant is the organizer of
nautanki in the village-He arrived at the place
and started unloading explosive substance
and articles of nautanki programme from his
own vehicle-but in rush of doing so-explosion
took place in the vehicle-three persons
sustained injuries- one died-unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial-and absence of any
convincing material-no role assigned to the
Applicant in the FIR in causing the explosion.

Bail granted. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Dataram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & anr., reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Km. Pooja Tiwari, learned
counsel for the applicant as well as learned
AGA for the State and also perused the
material placed on record.

2. By means of the present bail
application, the applicant- Abbu Sahma
seeks bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2022,
under Sections 304, 308 IPC and section 5
Explosive Substances Act, Police Station
Dariyabad, District Barabanki, during the
pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that an FIR was lodged on
23.5.2022 by the complainant S.I. Suresh
Chandra Mishra against the applicant and
coaccused Sultan alleging therein that when
on 22.5.2002, In charge out post Dariybad
Sub Inspector Surendra Mishra alongwith
some constables was on foot patrol from
the outpost in the town of Dariyabad, he
received information through mobile phone
that explosion has been done in the vehicle