Rahul Vishvakarma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86808

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8640 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Vishvakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 08.02.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajeev Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 423 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 69 of BNS and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Lanka, District - Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS.

¶11

Learned counsel has further stated that the victim is aged about 17 years old but by her looks, she seems to be major. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. Criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the statement of the victim recorded u/s 183 BNSS which indicates towards her consent, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Rahul Vishvakarma , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.

¶16

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

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

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date:- 22.5.2025 Siddhant

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Vishvakarma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Vishvakarma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sikandra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P.

Shubham Alias Tiger Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Alphaj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others