Back
SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV
Ravi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 488 of 2024, under Sections 123, 69 of BNS, P.S. Khoda, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.
3. As per prosecution story, victim was known to the applicant and also on talking terms with applicant for the last about 12 years and it is further alleged that applicant was emotionally blackmailing her for marriage. It is further alleged that on 12.07.2024, victim went to meet the applicant at Khera where she was given some poisonous substances in cold drink as a result of which she became unconscious and the applicant is said to have ran away leaving her at secluded place.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the incident is alleged to be of 12.07.2024 whereas the FIR was lodged after 45 days without there being any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that the victim is aged about 18 years as per her own admission in her statement under Section 183 BNSS and
The court granted bail considering the delay in FIR, victim's age, and consensual relationship, emphasizing the need for compliance with bail conditions.
The court granted bail based on the victim's consent and lack of injuries, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of allegations and circumstances surrounding the case.
The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty under Article 21, granting bail based on the victim's statement undermining the prosecution's case.
The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 necessitate granting bail unless proven otherwise, with the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.
The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 necessitate granting bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail should be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist; presumption of innocence prevails until proven guilty.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty.
The principle of 'Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty' supports bail as a rule, emphasizing the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court reinforced that allegations of sexual misconduct and coercion must be taken seriously, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the need to protect the victim's dignity and safety.
The court granted bail based on the victim's voluntary actions and lack of allegations of coercion, emphasizing the importance of her statements in the bail decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
