SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ritesh vs State Of U.P. on 20 August, 2019


?Court No. – 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 27758 of 2018

Applicant :- Ritesh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Srivastava,Pratap Kanchan Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Siddharth,J.

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. was lodged by the maternal uncle (Mama) of the prosecutrix alleging offences under Section 354 I.P.C., only. Thereafter, the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she has not named the applicant and the other co-accused, Shivam. However, in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has clearly alleged offence of rape against the applicant and co-accused, Shivam. From the medical report of the victim there does not appears to be any sign of rape. The age of victim has been found to be about 18 years by the doctor. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.03.2018. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will no misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

After considering the rival submissions noted hereinabove, larger mandate of SectionArticle 21 of the Constitution of India and the material brought on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicant Ritesh, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2018, under Sections- 376D, 323, 504, 506 SectionI.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Shahjahanpur, on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 20.8.2019

M/A. / Rohit



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation