Allowed

Ramdev v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2022BAIL/2702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench bail application allowed. The High Court found merit in arguments regarding the inordinate delay in FIR lodging, alleged falsification of the victim's age, and lack of medical evidence corroborating the rape charge. Bail granted.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ramdev released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts to the satisfaction of the court below.

Ramdev Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2702 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramdev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sumer Chaudhary,Ram Prasad Kanaujiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Kumar Prajapati

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 (Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the informant/victim as well as upon the CWC.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021 at Police Station Bisanda District Banda under Sections 363, 366-D, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 09.09.2021.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda on 02.12.2021.

¶8

Shri Ram Prasad Kanaujiya, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely

¶9

implicated in the instant case. The victim disappeared on 04.07.2021. However, the F.I.R. was lodged on 30.08.2021. The inordinate delay in lodgement of the F.I.R. in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case. The F.I.R incorrectly depicts the age of the victim as 16 years. The victim is infact a major. Medical examination to determine the correct age of the victim as per the established medical protocol by eminent doctors from a reputed institution was not got done by the prosecution as it would falsify the prosecution case. The victim had infact eloped with her love interest Pankaj. The two travelled together to Gujarat and various other public places. However, the victim did not resist the said Pankaj nor did she raise an alarm. She was a consenting party. The applicant was named in the F.I.R. only to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim. The victim made various implicatory statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to save the failing prosecution case. No medical evidence which corroborates the allegation of rape or forceful assault has been produced by the prosecution. False allegations under the POCSO Act have been made only to ensure the indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶10

Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for the State could

¶11

not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Ramdev be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the

¶20

prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Dhananjai

¶22

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.14 17:33:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramdev v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Awadhesh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dabaloo Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Prasad Shakya Vs State of U.P.