Allowed

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2022BAIL/5041/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal bail application filed by Ramu in a Section 376-D and 328 IPC case. The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution narrative and lack of independent eyewitness testimony, granting bail subject to standard conditions including attendance in court and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not seek adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5041 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Tiwari,Ayush Mishra,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 328 IPC, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per the prosecution version informant's daughter aged 17-18 years was enticed by Monu and Sarvesh & Rajni have extended assistance in such endeavour of accused. The statement of victim has been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 30.05.2019 in which allegation of rape is attributed to the applicant also although he is not named in FIR.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that FIR itself was registered on 17.01.2019 after the victim had gone missing on 03.01.2019 i.e. almost after 14 days. It is stated that the named accused Monu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45621 of 2020. Submission is that the applicant has been falsely implicated and his name has surfaced at the stage of recording statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. much later. It is also urged that the victim was recovered alongwith named accused Monu from the railway station and the plea that she was left in the forest after committing rape is clearly inconsistent with the evidence and material brought on record. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 16.10.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶9

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶10

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that the named accused has already been enlarged on bail and the name of applicant has surfaced in the statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C.; there is no independent eye witness to the incident; the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶11

Let the applicant - Ramu involved in aforesaid 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, with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶15

(iv) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the 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

¶18

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.17 17:53:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Anil Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shobha Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Amit Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another