Allowed

Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023BAIL/48188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Ravindra Kumar in a rape case (IPC 376, 323, 506). Despite the FIR lodged three years post-alleged offense, the court noted the absence of evidence like captured videos. Considering no tampering material exists, the applicant was released on bail with strict conditions for court appearance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties upon fulfillment of strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-tampering.

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215122

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48188 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K Singh Gaharwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri R.K. Singh Gaharwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Ravindra Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.531 of 2023, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 13.8.2023 by the victim herself against the applicant and his brother Gabbar Singh alleging therein that on 11.8.2023 she was sitting in her house with her mother, the applicant came and started dragging her. Her mother resented him on which she and her mother were assaulted. The applicant threatened her of making her photo viral. The applicant has been committing rape on her since last three years and also captured video and photo of the same. On opposing the same, she has been threatened of murdering her brother. He has also captured her naked photograph. He is a person of criminal nature.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim/first informant is a married major lady having nine years old child. The victim has stated her age as 26 years in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. It is argued that during investigation no such video or photograph have been recovered by the Investigating Officer. The FIR has been lodged after about 3 years since the rape has been committed for three years. The victim has remained silent and has not made any

¶11

complaint to any authority of police regarding any act of rape earlier. The present case is a case of false implication. The charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 13.8.2023.

¶12

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a married major lady having nine years old child. During investigation no such video or photograph have been recovered by the Investigating Officer. The victim has remained silent and has not made any complaint to any authority of police regarding any act of rape since the last three years. The charge sheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant-Ravindra Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during

¶20

trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Gaurav Kuls

¶27

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. N and Others

Raju Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonam @ Soni Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Raffan Khan Vs State

Vipin Vs State