Allahabad High Court
RAVI PRATAP SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding a prima facie case for release.
Summary
Ravi Pratap Shukla applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.153 of 2025) involving alleged assault and intoxication of a consenting adult woman at a hotel, with charges under Sections 64, 123 and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claimed innocence, citing a nine‑day delay in filing the FIR, lack of medical evidence, and that the victim voluntarily accompanied him to the hotel. The State opposed bail, arguing that the applicant, a person of influence, misused his clout and that CCTV footage placed both parties together in the hotel waiting area. The Court noted that pending criminal cases do not, by themselves, bar bail and considered the delay and absence of corroborative medical proof as factors favoring release. Without passing on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical corroboration justify granting bail.
- Whether the accused's influence and alleged misuse of clout constitute grounds to deny bail.
- Whether the presence of the accused and victim in CCTV footage affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 351(2), 64
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- influence of accused
- CCTV footage
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30771 of 2025
Ravi Pratap Shukla
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Akash Dwivedi,
Shiv Kumar Gupta, Vidit Narayan
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.148 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on
record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant,
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.153 of 2025, under Sections 64,
123, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, during the
pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about 9 days and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The victim is a consenting party, as she had gone with the applicant
all the way to a hotel, which was booked by the applicant through
MakeMyTrip, and the allegations that the applicant spiked her drink and
food are false. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim
obviously is major, as she was preparing for competitive examinations.
There is no recovery of any photographs or videos from the applicant. The
criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. He is in jail since
28.06.2025 and undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 30771 of 2025
2
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently
opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has misused his
clout, being a person of influence, although they could not dispute the fact
that the applicant and the victim were visible in the CCTV footage of the
hotel sitting in the waiting area.
6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another,
(2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case for bail is made out.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the fact that there is
no medical corroboration of the incident, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that
the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Ravi Pratap Shukla, be released on bail on furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…