Ramveer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2189 of 2025

¶2

Ramveer

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus .....Opposite Party(s)

¶5

State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brajesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar Yadav, S. A. Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 65

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

Office vide its report dated 08.09.2025 has reported that notice issued to the first informant of the case has been served personally.

¶8

List revised. None appears for the informant. Heard Sri S.A.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that one Amit was her coaching mate, who does the job at Delhi, had called her at Delhi and she had gone to Delhi out of her own free will and consent and from the the station she went to Anand Vihar Bus Station, where she met a person namely Nanhe, who took her to his room, where he committed wrong with her, thereafter he sold her to one Ramveer (applicant), who also did wrong with her and that Ramveer in turn arranged her conversation with one Modi and he also did wrong with her, thereafter she ran away from the house of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the victim before the trial Court also adduced her testimony more or less in the same manner. Learned counsel next argued that according to the medical report of the victim, the doctor opined that there is no sign of use of force, copy of which report is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Apart from the same, learned counsel also drawn attention of this Court to the pathological report of the victim, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application and argued that the report

¶10

BAIL No. 2189 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

shows that no spermatozoa seen and in her supplementary medico legal report, it has been opined that there is no sign of suggestive of penetration. It is thus contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the prosecution version and that the applicant has been falsely roped in the present case due to ulterior motive. He thus submits that no offence against the applicant is made out, therefore the applicant is entitled for bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let applicant Ramveer involved in Sessions Trial No. 1460 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.307 of 2023 under Sections 363, 376DA I.P.C., and Section 5 Chh/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Madnapur, District Shahjahanpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed,

¶19

BAIL No. 2189 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

unless personal presence is exempted.

¶22

D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.

¶23

E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶25

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶26

November 6, 2025

¶27

S.Ali

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramveer v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramveer v. State of U.P. 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

Vipin Sharma and Another vs State of Up

Sarita Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Alias Ballu vs State of U.P.

Smt. Jayda vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvar vs State of U.P. and Another