Allowed

Ravi Ahirwar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022BAIL/52651/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the bail application of Ravi Ahirwar charged under Section 364 IPC. The applicant was not named in the First Information Report and criminal history was explained. Relief was granted considering jail overcrowding due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ravi Ahirwar on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering evidence and committing new offences.

Ravi Ahirwar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52651 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Ahirwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Awadhesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Siddharth Shanker Mishra, learned State Law Officer, who appears for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant Ravi Ahirwar for enlarging him on bail in connection with Case Crime No.181 of 2021, under Sections 364 I.P.C. registered at Police StationSipari Bazar, District- Jhansi.

¶8

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 05.10.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Pushpendra Kumar Raiyakwar before aforesaid police station under Section 364 I.P.C. on 29.03.2021 at 13:53 hours against unknown persons relatable to the commission of the offence that on 29.3.2021 at 10:30 hours in the morning the brother of the complaint was playing holi and thereafter two persons came and they committed offence under Section 364 I.P.C. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards the recovery memo which is Annexure-18, relevant extract at page 19 so as to contend that applicant has been shown to be accused while showing recovery. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant has falsely been roped in the present case as he has not commited the said offence. Learned counsel has further argued that the alleged recovery is a planted one as there is no indepdent witness of the alleged recovery and further the fact that there is nothing on record to substantiate the change vis-avis the applicant with regard to the commission of the offence. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards page 2 of the supplementary affidavits dated 7.3.2021 filed today so as to contend that so far as Case Crime No. 634 of

¶10

2019 is concerned, the same relates to year 2019, under Section 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. which has lost its efficacy as the applicant was outside the jail and he has been confined in jail with effect from 30.3.2021. However, so far as Case Crime No. 388 of 2015 is concerned, the applicant has referred to para 3 that he has been enlarged on bail and so far as Case Crime No. 182 of 2021 is concerned, the same is post lodging of the present FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 30.3.2021.

¶11

Countering the said submissions, learned State Law Officer has opposed the prayer for bail while arguing that though the applicant was not named in the FIR, however, in recovery his name stood surfaced, however, he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history has been explained.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant is not named in the FIR and criminal history has been explained, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant- Ravi Ahirwar involved in aforesaid 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 that :-

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶20

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

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

¶22

Any 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.

¶23

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.3.2022 CS/-

¶25

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.03.10 15:25:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Ahirwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ahirwar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghvendra Singh Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Nusrat Jahan Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Veeri Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.