Allowed

Amol @ Ravindra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024BAIL/472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a case involving allegations under Section 376D and 506 IPC. The court noted inconsistencies between initial statements, the Section 164 statement, and medical records where the victim refused examination, granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, subject to standard conditions.

Amol @ Ravindra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5380

¶2

Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 472 of 2024 Applicant :- Amol @ Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶4

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶5

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.277 of 2023, under Section 376D/506 IPC, P.S. Tambaur, District Sitapur.

¶6

3. In terms of the FIR, initially it was stated that the niece of the informant is aged about 18 years and on 08.08.2023, she had gone to the field when the accused started harassing and misbehaved with her and on her raising hue and cry, she could be saved. A similar statement was given under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no allegation of rape was alleged, however, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., for the first time, allegation with regard to rape was made.

¶7

4. In the light of the said, learned counsel for the applicant draws my attention to the medical on record where the victim had refused to undergo medical examination. He, thus, argues that apart from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no material to corroborate the incident of rape against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 04.10.2023.

¶8

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶9

6. In view of the above referred facts, a case for bail is made out. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶10

7. Let the applicant Amol @ Ravindra be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶12

(c) 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.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 nishant

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amol @ Ravindra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol @ Ravindra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pinki Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Chhotu Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Sarwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Smt. Teerath Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others