Allowed

Ravendra @ Ravindra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023BAIL/14911/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application filed by Ravendra @ Ravindra, who was accused of offences under IPC 363, 366, 376(3), and POCSO Act. The court noted contradictory statements by the victim and granted bail while imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court attendance and no adjournments.

Ravendra @ Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14911 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ravendra @ Ravindra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Yadav,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,R.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Ravi Shankar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 272 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Sahaswan, District Badaun, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent.None turned up on behalf of the complainant though the name of learned counsel for the complainant is printed in the cause list.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that in fact the victim was a consenting party as she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, later on under the pressure and influence of her parents she has made improvement in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that even in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. no allegation of rape has been levelled against the accused applicant. He further submitted that the radiological age of the victim has been found 17 years. He further submitted that there is no chance of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submitted that the accused applicant is not having any criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 37 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submitted that the accused applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2020, as such, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent opposed the bail application of the accused applicant and submitted that victim is a minor girl as her radiological age has been found 17 years and the consent of the

¶9

victim has no value in the eyes of law. Therefore, the accused applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶11

It transpires from the record that the victim has given contradictory statement recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has not made any allegation of rape against the accused applicant.

¶12

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, it appears just to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Ravendra @ Ravindra involved in Case Crime No. 272 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Sahaswan, District Badaun, 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;

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the

¶19

applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶25

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Arun

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravendra @ Ravindra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravendra @ Ravindra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aanchal Vs State of U.P.

Rajkamal Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Surendra @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Basant @ Gopal Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P