Ritesh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

3. Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Dwivedi holding bried of Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Smriti Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 as well as Sri Sunil Kumar learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 104 of 2025, under Sections 70(2), 108, 3(5) BNS and section 5(G)/6 POCSO Act Police Station Ahar, District Bulandshahar during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR are serious in nature and that is of gang rape. However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case is a clear-cut case of false implication. It is argued that, although the victim is stated to have committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance, there is no overt act attributed to the applicant suggesting that he abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

6. It is further submitted that the informant has been examined as PW-1 and she has not supported the prosecution story. She has resiled from her earlier statement recorded before the Investigating Officer and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor after being declared hostile. Thus, it is argued that there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case.The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the witness has turned hostile, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Ritesh, 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

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

12. 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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

May 7, 2026

Sushma