Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2021BAIL/14485/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to the applicant accused under Sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO Act, citing lack of evidence for sexual assault, innocent impregnation allegation, and non-offensive nature of accusations. Conditions included personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-tampering.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14485 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar,Kalp Dev Mishra,Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶6

Heard Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 170 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.,Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Bahariyabad, District Ghazipur, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this very case crime number. As per the FIR, which was lodged against the applicant that the applicant enticed away the daughter of the informant, who is aged about 14 years. It is also submitted that the daughter of the informant was recovered from open place by the police after two days of incident. In the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of sexual assault against the applicant and only this much is stated that the applicant pressurized the victim for marriage. Applicant is of no criminal history as stated in paragraph no. 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2020. There is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence. Hence, bail, during trial, has been prayed for.

¶9

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

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Ravi Kumar who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶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 :- 24.9.2021

¶22

Sweety

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar 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

Smt. Dayawati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrajeet Yadav @ Pattar @ Dhanpattar Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Chandra Shukla @ Puttan Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Vs State of U.P.

Sonam Verma Vs State of U.P.