Allowed

Ravi @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021BAIL/48591/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court bench granted bail to an applicant charged under IPC and POCSO preceding sections. Court held it a fit case for bail subject to sureties and strict conditions regarding trial attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and no adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48591 of 2020 Applicant :- Ravi @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.233 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pakbara, District Moradabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per medical report of the victim, the age of the victim is 18 years. The applicant is claiming parity of co-accused Vikash, who has already been granted bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39510 of 2019, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the bail application. He further submits that since the co-accused has already been granted bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 02.07.2019.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant -Ravi @ Raju , who is involved in aforementioned case 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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶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 :- 19.7.2021 Ajeet

Ravi @ Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Raju 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

Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Charan Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Navi Alam Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav@ Amit Vs State of U.P.