Allowed

Ravi Lodhi @ Daya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023BAIL/38268/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under POCSO and SC/ST Acts, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail of an applicant after the victim's statement denied any physical relationship. The applicant had been in custody for over two years.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Ravi Lodhi @ Daya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157040

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38268 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Lodhi @ Daya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar,Om Prakash,Rahul Singh,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

As the matter pertains to the provision of POCSO and SC/ST Act, therefore, notice was issued to the informant.

¶7

As per office report dated 13.1.2022, notice has already been served to the informant. Despite service of notice, non appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶8

Heard Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC, under section 4 POCSO Act and u/s 3(1)(d), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bewar, District Hamirpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against one Jagdev and his unknown associate and according to the FIR named accused Jagdev entice away the sister of the informant aged about 17 years.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and when the statement of the victim was

¶12

recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she loved the applicant and on her own left her paternal home and performed marriage with him and in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. victim categorically stated that applicant did not make any physical relationship with her and she did not make any allegation against the applicant.

¶13

He further submitted that as per school record, age of the victim was although fifteen and a half years at the time of incident but during investigation her ossification test was not conducted and in view of the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., applicant did not commit any offence.

¶14

He next submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 8.7.2021 i.e. for more than two years.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. categorically stated that applicant did not make any physical relationship with the applicant and applicant is in jail since July, 2021 i.e. for more than two years.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Although, from the school record, it appears that victim was around fifteen and half years old at the time of incident but in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she categorically stated that applicant did not make any physical relationship with her and applicant is in jail since July, 2021 i.e. for more than two years.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Ravi Lodhi @ Daya , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶24

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

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.8.2023/Ankita

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Lodhi @ Daya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Lodhi @ Daya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mamta Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Mani @ Dablu @ Mahraj Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar @ Manish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Dushyant Vs State of U.P.