Ravendra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47126 of 2023 Applicant :- Ravendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Dinesh Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.106 of 2018, under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C., Police Station Sakrauli, District Etah during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The victim is a major girl. The victim had gone voluntarily with the co-accused Rameshwar Rao and entered into wedlock. There are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The said inconsistencies discredit the prosecution case. The co-accused, Rameshwar Rao has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36662 of 2019. The applicant is in jail since 17.10.2023, having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The victim had married the co-accused, Rameshwar Rao. Rameshwar Rao has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Ravendra, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad