Devendra Singh Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another

2. Heard Sri Veer Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Devendra Singh Verma with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 18.3.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra, in Bail Application No. 1232 of 2023 (Devendra Singh Verma Vs. State of U.P.) S.C. No.852 of 2025, Case Crime No. 204 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 316(2) BNS and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(5)Ka of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dauki, District Agra, and with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.12.2024 by the opposite party no. 2/Rahul against the appellant and Anup alleging therein that he was working in the shop of the appellant as a clerk previously. On 23.4.2023 Devendra took some ornaments from him stating that he would be paid rent on it but he did not give any rent. He asked for rent many times but he states to give it after some times. He continuously asked for rent on which assurance was given but it was not given to him. Devendra has committed cheating and forgery with him. On 19.11.2024 in the morning Devendra and his clerk Anup met him near Vazidpur crossing where he inquired about rent and asked for return of his ornaments from Devendra, on which they got agitated and used caste related words and abused him and stated that they would not return anything. He may do anything else. They abused him and assaulted and threatened him. A report be lodged and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing para-11 that the present case is a case of no injury. It is further submitted that the present F.I.R. has been lodged with malafide intentions as the appellant is owner of M/s Bhaskar Traders Vazidpur, Fatehabad and Rajeet the brother of the informant borrowed some articles from his shop for which a cheque was given to him which was dishonored and then a case under Section 138 N.I. Act has been instituted in which he was summoned vide order dated 2.3.2024 and further he was directed to deposit 10% of the cheque amount vide order dated 6.10.2025, para-15 of the affidavit in support of bail application has been placed before the Court for the same. It is submitted that the present matter draws punishment within 07 years and the appellant was initially granted interim bail vide order dated 07.03.2026 by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra but subsequently his bail application was rejected, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 7 to the affidavit in support of the bail application. It is submitted that investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and the co-accused Anup has been exonerated. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 30 of the affidavit in support of bail in appeal and is in jail since 18.3.2026.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and State opposed the appeal and prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and charge sheet has been submitted against him and there are allegations of use of caste related words.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the appellant and the first informant/opposite party no. 2 had relationship between them since the first informant was previously working as a clerk in the shop of the appellant. The matter has punishment up to 07 years. The appellant was previously granted interim bail by the trial court concerned but subsequently his bail application was rejected. The present case is a case of no injury. Investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant. The co-accused Anup has been exonerated during investigation.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the appellant- Devendra Singh Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS/82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 209 BNS/174-A I.P.C.

(v) The appellant 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 251 BNSS/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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS/229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.

10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.

11. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

12. The impugned order 18.3.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra in the said case is hereby set aside.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

May 6, 2026

Naresh