Allowed

Ravindra @ Ravi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2018BAIL/43351/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a POCSO and rape case involving a handicapped victim, noting that the prosecutrix did not identify the applicant in her police statement, deeming it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties along with complying with standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43351 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra @ Ravi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Ravindra @ Ravi, in Case Crime No.1489 of 2018, under Section 376D IPC, and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, and Section 5 of Handicapped Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned AGA along with Sri Abhinav Tripathi, appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the prosecution case, she was abducted by an Auto-Rickshaw driver which she had boarded, who took her to a place other than her intended destination. There he ravished her in association with another man, after carrying her away by force and confined her. It is alleged that somehow she managed to call the police over the dial 100 facility who arrived causing the assailants to escape. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, that in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., while all the above facts figure, as the prosecutrix's account of the occurrence, she has specifically said that the man arrested and confined in jail now, is not amongst the two, who had ravished her. The submission, therefore, is that the prosecution have not at all been able to establish the applicant's identity as one of the perpetrators.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the fact that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has not identified the applicant.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegation, the evidence appearing in the case, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix has specifically said in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that the man confined in jail, that is to say, the applicant is not the one who had committed the crime, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶11

Let the applicant Ravindra @ Ravi, in Case Crime No.1489 of 2018, under Section 376D IPC, and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, and Section 5 of Handicapped Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶17

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.11.2018 NSC

Ravindra @ Ravi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra @ Ravi 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

Vipin Mishra Vs State of U.P.

vishnu @ vinay Vs State of U.P.

Rajju Alias Bangali Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Agrahari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bade Lalla @ Jaduveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Pal Vs State of U.P.