# Ravindra Singh Rathaur v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1008
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-24
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 24630 of 2024
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-singh-rathaur-v-state-of-u-p-52177
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. (Criminal Law-The Indian Penal Code1860-Sections 328, 376, 323, 344, 354-C,
384, 504 & 506) (Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
439)-
It
is
impossible
for
an
inexperienced
man
to
anaesthetise
a
sleeping
person
without
disturbance, so as to substitute artificial sleep
for natural sleep. Hence the story often
published in the lay press of a woman having
been rendered suddenly unconscious by a
handkerchief soaked in chloroform held over her
face and then raped is not to be believed-

B. A well-known principle of "Presumption of
Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to
the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment
as an exception. A person's right to life and
liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, cannot be taken away simply
because the person is accused of committing an
offence until the guilt is established beyond a
reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution states that no one's life or personal
liberty may be taken away unless the procedure
established by law is followed, and the
procedure must be just and reasonable. (Para
13, 14 & 16)
Bail Application allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1008
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 24630 of 2024

Ravindra Singh Rathaur ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sandeep Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

A. (Criminal Law-The Indian Penal Code1860-Sections 328, 376, 323, 344, 354-C,
384, 504 & 506) (Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
439)-
It
is
impossible
for
an
inexperienced
man
to
anaesthetise
a
sleeping
person
without
disturbance, so as to substitute artificial sleep
for natural sleep. Hence the story often
published in the lay press of a woman having
been rendered suddenly unconscious by a
handkerchief soaked in chloroform held over her
face and then raped is not to be believed-

B. A well-known principle of "Presumption of
Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to
the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment
as an exception. A person's right to life and
liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, cannot be taken away simply
because the person is accused of committing an
offence until the guilt is established beyond a
reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution states that no one's life or personal
liberty may be taken away unless the procedure
established by law is followed, and the
procedure must be just and reasonable. (Para
13, 14 & 16)
Bail Application allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & ors., 2022
(10) SCC 51

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material available on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No. 63 of 2024, under Sections
328, 376, 323, 344, 354-C, 384, 504, 506 of
I.P.C., Police Station - Dadri, District -
Gautam
Buddha
Nagar,
during
the
pendency of trial.

Prosecution Story:

3. The applicant is stated to have
entered into corporeal relationship with the
informant and had even performed fake
marriage with her in the year 2022. The
applicant is also stated to have concealed
the fact that he already had two siblings
from his first marriage.

4. It is alleged that the informant
had earlier instituted the FIR No.474 of
2022, u/s 366 of IPC against him in which
police filed a closure report on account of
her own statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
The applicant is stated to have rendered the
informant intoxicated and thereafter her
statement has been recorded by the
Magistrate. The applicant is even stated to
have filed a habeas corpus Writ Petition
No. 517 of 2023 before this Court although
the same was dismissed.

5. The applicant had threatened the
informant to make the indecent videos of
7 All. Ravindra Singh Rathaur Vs. State of U.P.
1009
her viral which he is stated to have
recorded.

Arguments on behalf of applicant:

6. The applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with
the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The
FIR is delayed as it has been instituted after
moving an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by
the informant.

7. It is stated that the victim in her
statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has
stated that she was under the influence of
drugs at the behest of the applicant and has
wrongly deposed before the Magistrate u/s
164 Cr.P.C. earlier on, as such, the said
statement cannot be relied on. It is argued
that the Magistrate is not an interested
person and he would never record the
statement of an intoxicated person.

8. As per the statement of the
victim, she is major being 22 years of age,
as such, at the time of offence, she was 20
years of age. The victim is a consenting
party. It is further stated that earlier FIR
was also found false by the police although
the closure report is yet to be accepted.

9. The applicant has no other
criminal history except the two FIR
instituted by the same informant. There is
no medical report to corroborate the
prosecution story.

10. Several other submissions have
been made on behalf of the applicant to
demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against him. The circumstances
which, as per counsel, led to the false
implication of the applicant have also been
touched upon at length.
11. The applicant is languishing in
jail since 28.02.2024, having no previous
criminal history to his credit, deserves to be
released on bail. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

Arguments on behalf of State:

12. The bail application has been
opposed on the ground that the applicant
had rendered the victim unconscious by
putting his handkerchief soaked with
chloroform on her nose and has committed
the said offence although he could not
dispute the fact that except two FIRs
instituted by the same informant, there are
no other criminal history of the applicant.

Conclusion:

13. As far as the fact of rendering a
person
unconscious
by
putting
a
handkerchief on her face is concerned, in
the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence &
Toxicology,
Twenty-Second
Edition
(Student Edition) at page 511, it is observed
as:

"....................Concerning
the
administration
of
an
anaesthetic
drug,
such
as
chloroform, it must be remembered
that it is impossible to anaesthetise
a woman against her will while she
is
awake.
Even
a
skilled
anaesthetist requires the help of
one or two assistants to hold a
patient forcibly down on the
operating table during the first
stage of anaesthesia, although the
patient voluntarily inhales it for an
operation. It is also impossible for
an
inexperienced
man
to
anaesthetise a sleeping person
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without disturbance, so as to
substitute
artificial
sleep
for
natural sleep. Hence the story
often published in the lay press of
a woman having been rendered
suddenly
unconscious
by
a
handkerchief
soaked
in
chloroform held over her face and
then raped is not to be believed. It
must be borne in mind that a
woman, especially of an excitable
and emotional temperament, during
the stage of anaesthesia, might get
a dream or hallucination that she
has been raped, and may insist on
the belief after the effects of
anaesthesia have passed off, so that
she
brings
an
accusation
of
violation
against
her
medical
attendant. ..........."

14. The well-known principle of
"Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven
Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as
a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A
person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
cannot be taken away simply because the
person is accused of committing an offence
until the guilt is established beyond a
reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution states that no one's life or
personal liberty may be taken away unless
the procedure established by law is
followed, and the procedure must be just
and reasonable. The said principle has been
reiterated by the Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation and Ors., 2022 (10) SCC
51. Learned AGA could not bring forth any
exceptional circumstances which would
warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

15. It is settled principle of law
that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial. No
material
particulars
or
circumstances
suggestive of the applicant fleeing from
justice or thwarting the course of justice or
creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating
offences
or
intimidating
witnesses and the like have been shown by
learned AGA.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, the
evidence
on
record,
pending
trial,
complicity
of
accused,
severity
of
punishment and also considering the
opinion expressed in the book of Modi's
Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology and
the age of the victim coupled by the fact
that there is no injury to corroborate the
prosecution story, at this stage, 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.

17. Let the applicant- Ravindra
Singh Rathaur, 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.

(i) The applicant shall not
tamper with evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall
remain present, in person, before
the Trial Court on dates fixed for
(1) opening of the case, (2) framing
of charge and (3) recording of
statement
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial
Court absence of the applicant is
7 All. Ryen @ Ren Chao Vs. State of U.P.
1011
deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the
Trial Court to treat such default as
abuse of liberty of bail and proceed
against him in accordance with law.

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.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1011
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 59258 of 2022

Ryen @ Ren Chao ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhas Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Rajesh
Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B &
201 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Sections 14,
14(A), 14(B) & 14(C) - IT Act - Section
66D - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 309, 445 - The applicant,
a Chinese national came to India on work
visa - Applicant never worked in employer
company, started working illegally for
HTZN, engaged in business of extracting
chips from e-waste, exported chips to
China, operated illegal gaming apps,
laundered money to foreign countries in
form of bitcoins, had no authority in law
to do business in India - Applicant's visa
had long expired, stayed on illegally -
Place of residence in Visa is different - The
well structured crime machinery, included
persons who facilitated illegal entry of
Chinese nationals in India, aided their
unlawful
exit,
created
fake
identity
documents - Applicant is part of a larger
international mafia engaged in organized
criminal activities - Strong likelihood that
he had committed the offence - Applicant
flouted visa conditions, overstayed after
expiry of visa and carried on criminal
activities, no respect for Indian laws - In
view of availability of crime network, the
applicant is likely to indulge in nefarious
activities if released on bail - Applicant is
an high flight risk, poses a danger to
process of law. (Para 21, 22, 24, 38, 44,
70)

Bail application dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hans Muller of Nurenburg Vs Superintendent,
Presidency Jail, Calcutta & ors., 1955 SCC
OnLine SC 35

2. Michal Benson Nwaogu @ Chuna Benson Vs
St., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 665

3. Hussainara Khatoon & ors. (I) Vs Home
Secretarty, St. of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81

4. A.R.Antulay Vs R.S.Nayak & anr., (1992) 1
SCC 225

5. Sheela Barse & ors.Vs U.O.I.& ors., (1986) 3
SCC 632

6. P. Rama Chandra Rao Vs St. of Karnataka,
(2002) 4 SCC 578

7.
P.
Chidambaram
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl) No. 10493 of 2019)

8. King vs Porter, (1910) 1 KB 369