Allowed

Ravindra Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2018BAIL/14094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a bail application in a POCSO case where the applicant was accused of kidnapping and sexual assault. The court observed the victim's voluntary involvement based on her statutory declaration and noted the applicant's lack of antecedents, granting bail with specific conditions to ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance.

Ravindra Ram Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14094 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Tripathi,Prakash Narayan Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri MK Tripathi and Sri PN Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

Contention raised at the Bar is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that the FIR was registered by Sri Lalji Pal, father of the prosecutrix, after seven days of the alleged incident, with the allegation that her daughter was kidnapped by the applicant Ravindra Ram. The victim was recovered on 12.01.2018 after 17 days of the incident, which allegedly occurred on 26.12.2017. In the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix stated that she had fallen in love with the applicant and out of own volition and accord joined the company of the applicant and went to Pandeypur and thereafter to different places with him. On 01.01.2018 they solemenized their marriage and made physical relations with the applicant and lived as wife and husband before they

¶7

were nabbed by the police. She candidly therein that she was not enticed away by anyone. The aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix reveals that she was a consenting party. It was lastly urged that the applicant is in jail since 16.01.2018, having no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Ravindar Ram, involved in Case Crime No. 7 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Cholapur, District Varanasi be released on bail 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:-

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT 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

¶12

OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT 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.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Order Date :- 17.4.2018 shailesh

Ravindra Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Chhatrapal Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Vs State of U.P.

Shambhoo Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Rajnish Notiyal Vs State of U.P.