Allowed

Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Ravindra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024BAIL/8414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under IPC Sections 363, 366, 370, 376-D and POCSO Sections 5/6 for alleged kidnapping and rape of a 14-year-old. The applicant was not named in the victim's initial statement, and co-accused had been granted bail; bail was allowed on standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, pressurizing witnesses, with duty to appear at trial.

Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Ravindra vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55129

¶2

Court No. - 31

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8414 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 140 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 370, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 19.05.2023, stating that the informant's grand-daughter, aged about 14 years, had gone out of the house in the night on 17.05.2023, for a call of nature but she did not come back.

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.c., she did not implicate the applicant but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her additional statement recorded by the Investing Officer, she implicated the applicant.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

The co-accused Bindu, who was named in the victim's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been granted bail by means of an order dated 22.11.2023, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10833 of 2023, four other coaccused persons Raksha Ram, Ravi Pratap Yadav, Peshkar and Kripa Ram, have also been granted bail and copies of their bail orders have been annexed with the affidavit.

¶13

As all the other co-accused persons have been granted bail and the applicant was not named in the initial statement of the victim and the case set up against him is at par with those co-accused persons who have been granted bail, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Ravindra 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Ruhi H.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Ravindra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Ravindra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko vs Sunil Kumar Sonkar

Suraj vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mewa Lal Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko.

Sateesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pushpa Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Prajapati vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home