Allowed

Ravi Gautam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2022BAIL/25243/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application filed by Ravi Gautam. The court held that a case for bail was made out without expressing any opinion on the merits and ordered the applicant's release on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ravi Gautam was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions.

Ravi Gautam Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25243 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 33/2022, under Sections 376(2)(N), 504, 506 IPC, police station Kyoladiya, District Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. According to prosecution version, applicant is friend of brother of informant and that since last one year he has established physical relations with the informant on pretext of marriage but later on he refused to marry with her. Learned counsel submitted that informant is a major girl, aged 20 years, and that only a vague allegation has been made that applicant has established physical relations on pretext of marriage. No specific incident of rape has been mentioned in the first information report. It was also submitted that all the attending facts and circumstances of the case show that informant was in a consensual relationship with applicant and in fact applicant is still ready to marry with her. It has been further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 05.05.2022 and that in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Ravi Gautam involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant or any of the witness of the case.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Anand

¶17

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.11.22 11:19:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Gautam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Gautam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nisha Kant Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Md. Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Prince Kumar Vs State of U.P.