Allowed

Ravi Pratap Singh Alias Kallu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/19816/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant accused of child abduction and sexual assault. Court found no evidence of sexual assault by the applicant, witness tampering risk, or prior criminal history sufficient to deny bail, granting conditional release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and various conditions including appearance before trial court and prohibition on leaving India.

Ravi Pratap Singh Alias Kallu Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179003

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19816 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Pratap Singh Alias Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

1-A. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegation in the First Information Report, it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant went to school, however, she was missing and it is suspected by the informant that applicant along with other co-accused have taken away the minor daughter of the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is filed along with rejoinder affidavit. A perusal of statement of victim would demonstrate that the victim went voluntarily with coaccused person, however, allegations were made against applicant and co-accused Ajeet. It is also stated that they had given Maggi and, thereafter, she went unconscious and she have been raped. It is stated that no medical examination has been made, as victim has denied her medical examination. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that independent witnesses, namely, Amarjeet Gupta, Ramesh Gupta and Vinay Singh in their statements have stated that they have seen the victim along with applicant going voluntarily on the motorcycle, statements of independent witnesses is at page 39 of the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that the victim and the applicant, both were known to each others family, however, the dispute has arisen with the uncle of the applicant, as a result of same, FIR has been lodged.

¶10

The FIR was lodged with delay on 20.11.2022 although the occurrence is of 16.11.2022. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.3.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is no evidence of sexual assault against applicant and the only allegation is of taking away the victim.

¶12

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶13

It is not the case of the State that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accusedapplicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.

¶16

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion.

¶17

No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.

¶18

No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if enlarged on bail.

¶19

It is to be seen that in the present case, as per allegation in the First Information Report, it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant went to school, however, she was missing and it is suspected by the informant that applicant along with other coaccused have taken away the minor daughter of the informant. Perusal of the statement of victim would demonstrate that the victim went voluntarily with co-accused person, however, allegations were made against applicant and co-accused Ajeet. It is also stated that accused persons had given Maggi and, thereafter, she went unconscious and she have been raped. No medical examination has been made, as the victim has denied her medical examination. Independent witnesses, namely, Amarjeet Gupta, Ramesh Gupta and Vinay Singh in their statements have stated that they have seen the victim along with applicant going voluntarily on the motorcycle. There is no evidence of sexual assault against applicant and the only allegation is of taking away the victim. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.3.2023

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Ravi Pratap Singh Alias Kallu involved in Case Crime No.218 of 2022, under Sections 363, 120B, 354A IPC and Section 7/8 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

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

¶23

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶25

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶26

v. 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶28

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶30

Order Date :- 15.9.2023

¶31

D. Tamang

¶32

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Pratap Singh Alias Kallu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Pratap Singh Alias Kallu v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasruddin Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Bitchu Nishad @ Bitch Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeeta Vs State of U.P.

Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others