Allowed

Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2021BAIL/45901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45901 of 2020, allowed bail to the accused Ravishankar Thakur facing charges under IPC 363, 366, 376(3) and POCSO. Relying on the delay in FIR, the victim's admission of marriage, and the birth of a child, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions, including a personal bond without sureties initially due to court closure.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by executing a personal bond without sureties initially, to be followed by two sureties within a month of courts resuming normal functioning.

Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45901 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through virtual mode as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.50 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5(J)(ii), 5(L)6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Chit Bara Gaon, District-Ballia is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR was got registered after three months delay on 25.04.2020 by one Navneet Kumar Pandey against the sole accused person that her minor daughter was enticed by the applicant on 27.01.2020. On the earlier occasion too i.e. on 18.09.2019, the girl was earlier enticed by the same person for which the FIR was got registered as Case Crime No.84 of 2019. Even again, the girl was taken away by the applicant. The victim herself appeared before the police on 25.07.2020 and recorded her 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

¶8

The Court has perused the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the girl in which she has blasted the prosecution story to its core. It is further submitted that since she has not passed the High School examination, the Court directed to get her radiological examination done and as per report from the Chief Medical Officer, Ballia dated 20.03.2021, she is aged about 18 years. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she has submitted that on her own, she joined the company of the applicant and came to Ballia, thereafter Patna where they performed the marriage in temple. When the 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she was pregnant of five months and two weeks. Learned counsel for the applicant apprised the Court that she has given birth to a baby boy on 18.12.2020 and presently, she is residing with her in-laws. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.07.2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that as per her IXth class mark-sheet, her date of birth

¶10

is 20.02.2005. But fact remains that class-IXth is not a valid document on which it could be relied.

¶11

Taking into account the totality of the circumstances where she herself admitted that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant and from whom she has given birth to a baby boy and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi , who is involved in the aforesaid case 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.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶14

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.7.2021 Sumit S

Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravishankar Thakur @ Prashant Kumar @ Ravi 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

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan Vs State of U.P.

Salman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Danveer Vs State of U.P.

Kashish Vs State of U.P.