Allowed

Ravikant v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022BAIL/54279/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an applicant charged with cheating, forgery, and impersonation in an examination fraud case. The court, considering the applicant's lack of criminal history, nature of the charge, and jail overcrowding due to the pandemic, held it to be a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in equal amounts, subject to conditions regarding non-interference with witnesses and evidence.

Ravikant Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54279 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ravikant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Tripathi,Rajeev Kumar,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Shikhar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suraj Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Ravikant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.330 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC & under Section 6/10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 registered at Police Station- Jani, DistrictMeerut.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 26.11.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Shahrukh Ansari, Chief Examination Officer, N.S.E.I.T. against the applicant and two other before P.S. Jani, District- Meerut being FIR no.0330 of 2021 on 20.11.2021 at 19:40 hours under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC & under Section 6/10 of the U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 regarding commission of offence with an allegation that the application impersonated one Sri Rambharat son of Mayaram with respect to Sub-Inspector Police/PC(PAC)/FSSO Direct Recruitment examination 2020-21 and when the examination/admit card was being sought to be checked then there were certain inconsistency in photograph. However, on account of the fact that the same would cause delay, the applicant was allowed to enter into the room itself wherein the examination was to be taken.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question in order to settle the score. Learned counsel for the applicant on the strength of the supplementary affidavit dated 21.12.2021 has drawn the attention towards paragraph 8 so as to contend that no incriminating articles has been recovered from him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph-20 so as to contend that he does not possess any criminal history and in case he is further detained in jail, his academic as well as social career will be jeopardised.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 20.11.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he is police personnel and he cannot even in his dream commit such type of offence.

¶13

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant and that is why his name has been find place in the first information report and it was highly objectionable to sit in the examination in once the applicant is in police service himself.

¶14

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 has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 20.11.2021, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant- Ravikant 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 :-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.11 17:59:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravikant v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikant 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

Shakil @ Khunti Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh @ David Vs State of U.P.

Umardaraj@ Kala Vs State of U.P.

Pushpa Vs State of U.P.

Iliyas Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.