Allowed

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sagar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2023BAIL/7213/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant Ravindra Kumar accused of raping a minor under IPC 376(3) and POCSO. The court noted discrepancies in medical examination reports and witness statements regarding the alleged physical relationship and obscene photographs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses appearing in trial.

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sagar Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124628

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7213 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjive Kumar Gupta,Jitendra Pal Singh,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Sahu, holding brief of Shri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In this case, first information report regarding minor daughter of the informant was lodged in Police Station Kotwali on 25.04.2020 mentioning therein that the minor daughter of the informant is missing since 21.04.2020 at about 7:00 p.m. from the house of her grandmother (nani). F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started. After recovery of the victim from the residence of her maternal uncle, her statement was recorded by the police and the name of the present accused applicant came into light. F.I.R. was lodged against the present accused applicant.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only due to previous animosity. It is further submitted that victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., although the prosecutrix has made a statement that physical relation was made by the accused applicant with her after taking her to his house, but however, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., no specific statement of rape or physical relationship has been made by the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid statement, the prosecutrix has stated that she was threatened by the accused applicant by way of some obscene photographs, but, however, she nowhere states that any obscene photograph was actually shown to her by the accused applicant. It is further submitted that there is difference in the evidence collected by the I.O. in respect of the age of the victim. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim in this case is a minor girl. As per the high school certificate, her date of birth is 08.08.2004 and in the ossification test report, her age has been ascertained about 17 years and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that the rape was committed by the accused applicant and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has corroborated the prosecution version. It is thus submitted that accused applicant has committed rape with minor victim. Alleged offence is very henious.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

7. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶12

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶13

8. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶14

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶15

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person

¶16

should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶17

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶18

In this matter, as is evident from the record that in the medical examination of the victim, no substance is found regarding the rape being committed with her although in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has averred regarding physical relationship with her made by the accused applicant. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., nothing specific has been stated by the prosecutrix regarding the alleged physical relationship made with her by the accused applicant. She has not been recovered from the possession of the accused applicant but she has been retrieved from the house of her own maternal uncle. No obscene photographs have been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation as alleged in the statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. The accused applicant is in jail since 26.06.2020. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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.

¶19

Let the applicant Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sagar involved in Case Crime No. 111 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District - Budaun 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date

¶23

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶28

Order Date :- 5.6.2023 Shivangi

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sagar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi Sagar 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

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mithlesh Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up Lucknow

Ramavtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajab Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another