Allowed

Ravish and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2020BAIL/9431/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to applicants Ravish and Dharmendra in a criminal case involving Sections 308, 323, and 504 IPC. The court imposed strict conditions for the personal bond, including prohibitions on tampering with evidence or delaying the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions including prohibitions on tampering with evidence and ensuring attendance during critical trial stage

Ravish and Another Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9431 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ravish And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the applicants, and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants, Ravish and Dharmendra, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2018, under Sections 308, 323, 504 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Indargarh, District Kannauj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the present case is a cross case in which non cognizable reports from both the sides have been registered. The report from the side of the prosecution was N.C.R. No. 25 of 2018 dated 06.05.2018 whereas the one from the side of the accused was N.C.R. No. 26 of 2018 dated 06.05.2018. From the side of the applicants two persons namely Smt. Rita Devi and Chandra Bhan have received injuries. The applicants are in jail since 28.01.2020 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Let the applicants, Ravish and Dharmendra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶10

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶11

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶14

(V) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶15

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison. Order Date :- 28.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Ravish and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravish and Another 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

Sagar Rana Vs State of U.P.

Tejram Vs State of U.P.

Pinku Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Panna Lal @ Pintu @ Pramod Vs State of U.P.