Allowed

ravi @ nitin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2020BAIL/2371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the accused sought release in a case alleging rape and offences under the POCSO Act. The High Court found it a fit case for bail imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and harassment of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with two sureties on conditions not to tamper with evidence, not to harass witnesses, and to appear for trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2371 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi @ Nitin Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Uma Nath Pandey, Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Ajay Singh Sengar, Anil Kumar Srivastava, Arvind Kumar, Dheerendra Kumar Srivastava, Jayant Srivastava, Vivek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Rama Shankar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Brahma Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.

¶7

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Ravi @ Nitin in connection with Case Crime No.184 of 2017, under Sections 307, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ahar, district Bulandshahar.

¶8

The first information of this incident was lodged by the complainant against the applicant with the allegation of rape of his cousin sister, Babli. It was alleged in the first information report that the applicant dragged his sister in the fields and raped her.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a ulterior motive. He submitted that the accused is aged about 20 years and when the incident has taken place he was only 17-18 years of age. He submitted that the victim has not supported the prosecution version in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the medical does not support the allegation of rape. He further submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not reliable as it is tutored one. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2017 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail plea.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 11.11.2020 R./

ravi @ nitin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ravi @ nitin 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subham Yadav @ Shanu Vs State of U.P.

Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Govind Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Gurudayal Vs State of U.P.