Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2022BAIL/10099/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of offences including kidnapping, abduction, rape, and POCSO. The court accepted arguments regarding the alleged false implication, compromise between parties, and lack of evidence tampering risks, while imposing standard conditions for trial compliance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ravi Kumar was released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10099 of 2022 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Vijay Tripathi, holding brief of Mr. Alok Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶4

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.115 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Makkhanpur, District Firozabad.

¶5

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the impugned first information report and also the bail rejection order.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The alleged incident alleged to have taken place on 16.05.2019 whereas the impugned first information report has been lodged on 15.06.2019 without any plausible explanation. The victim Pratima in her statement has stated that she has solemnized marriage with the applicant Ravi Kumar in the year 2019 and there is one child from their wedlock. In her statement she has not levelled any serious allegation against the applicant. He has further submitted that the parties have entered into compromise. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant is in jail since 17.12.2021.

¶7

On the other hand, learned counsel for complaint opposes the application for bail but could not dispute the above said aspect.

¶8

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be

¶9

enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar , 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

Order Date :- 30.5.2022

¶19

Ajeet

¶20

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.06.01 17:31:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Awadhraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Sahani Vs State of U.P.

Nabi Sarvar Vs State of U.P and Another

Shabana Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeeshan Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another