Allowed

Ramratan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2020BAIL/17214/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J. granted bail to Ramratan charged under Sections 376-D, 328 IPC, noting the absence of charge sheet against one co-accused and lack of medical corroboration for rape allegations. The court imposed strict conditions regarding appearance and trial conduct, directing the trial court to conclude the case within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail released on a personal bond with two sureties; no surety properties to be disposed of during trial; strict conditions on presence and non-adjournment; trial to conclude within one year.

Ramratan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17214 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ramratan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that three accused persons are named in the FIR out of whom one of the accused Vikki @ Vivek has not been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and one Golu who happens to be the distant relative of the applicant. The real sister of the applicant was enticed away by the phuphiya brother of the informant for which offence under Section 363, 366 IPC was registered against him and on account of the said animosity the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant. Though there is specific allegation of rape against the applicant but the same does not corroborate the medical report of the victim. The victim as per High School Certificate is twenty years of age and as per FIR itself she is aged about 19 years. The applicant is in jail since 28.12.2019 and previous to it he has no criminal history to his credit.

¶7

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

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, 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.

¶9

Let the applicant Ramratan, involved in Case Crime No.516 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 328 IPC, P.S. Jaithara, district Etah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and the court concerned shall take an undertaking from the sureties that the properties movable/immovable which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them during the pendency of the trial with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶11

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(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. 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.

¶13

(iv) 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 and (iii) 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.

¶14

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶16

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within the period of one year from the date of production of copy of this order before the trial court, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.10.2020 Gaurav

¶20

Digitally signed by Justice Ramesh Sinha Date: 2020.10.05 19:00:11 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramratan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramratan 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

Smt. Kamla Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Km Srishti Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mukul Dev Vs State of U.P.

Hafiz Dilnawaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wanted Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Vs State of U.P.