Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27138

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12153 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Kumar

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and perused the records.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0259 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) N, 376 (3), 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 24.05.2024 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter while she had gone to attend the call of nature at about 04.00 a.m. on 23.05.2024. The F.I.R. further states that the applicant had seen talking to the informant's daughter on numerous occasions and he used to come to the informant's home in her absence and he used to talk to the informant's daughter.

¶11

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that she is aged about 19 years. The applicant had asked her to go and he would follow her and thereafter she had went along to Chilbila but the applicant did not come there.

¶12

From there she went to Surat alone and thereafter started working as a domestic help in the house of an old lady. She met a boy named Golu and she stayed at his room for some time. In response to specific question put by the Investigating Officer the victim categorically stated that no misdeed was committed against her. Similar statement was given by the victim before the doctor also. The informant and the victim both declined the victim's internal medico legal examination.

¶13

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she had gone out of her home at 3.00 a.m. and went to Chilbila with the applicant on foot. The applicant made her sit in a train stating that he would come after some time. The train moved but she could not get down. She reached Mumbai where she worked in the house of an old lady. She talked to the applicant with the phone of that lady and she came back after knowing about lodging of the F.I.R. She stated that the applicant is her neighbor and she used to talk to him for the past four years. She stated that the applicant had forced himself few months ago and thereafter both of them made physical relations on 3-4 occasions. She had left home for marrying the applicant.

¶14

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged about 21 years, he is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶15

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of relevant material collected during investigation and a copy of charge sheet dated 03.09.2024. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the information of the application has been delivered to the informant through police.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the difference in two versions of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C.; that the victim declined to undergo medico legal examination; that the applicant is a young man having no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.08.2024 and the investigation already stands concluded and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, 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.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Ravi Kumar 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ram.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Singh Yadav @ Veerey Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suhail Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sundar Lal Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ramroop Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Asmit Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Hari Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.