Allowed

Ramji v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2019BAIL/41275/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ramji in a case under Sections 376 IPC and POCSO. The court found prima facie grounds for bail and granted release on personal bond and two sureties, with standard conditions. It directed the lower court to decide the case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties upon fulfillment of conditions to not tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Ramji Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41275 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ramji Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Learned counsel for the complainant was not present in the first round even he is also not present the revise call of the list. The Court proceeds to hear the case on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶8

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2017, under Sections 376(1) I.P.C. and section 4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Banda.

¶9

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.

¶10

The contention as raised at the bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; reliance has been placed upon the statement of the girl, who has been examined as PW1 during trial, certified copy of which has been produced before this Court in today and the same has been taken on record; in the said statement the girl has categorically stated that the FIR has been lodged at the instance of her mother; reliance has also been placed upon the statement of Shyamrao Singh and Veer Singh to show that that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the girl is full of contradictions. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 8.3.2018 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned A. G. A.

¶12

Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant Ramji involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

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

¶21

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶22

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶23

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶24

Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Kuldeep

Ramji v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Poddar Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Singh @ Chumman Vs State of U.P.

Nand Lal Ram Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Vs State of U.P.

Fateh Vs State of U.P.

Ramji Pandey Vs State of U.P.