Allowed

Farid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018BAIL/39618/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for rape and POCSO offences, the Court granted bail noting that the prosecutrix has disowned her prosecution story during trial. The Court found it a fit case for bail despite gravity of offences due to the discrepancy in evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted by executing personal bond with two sureties and complying with conditions not to tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or commit similar offences.

Farid Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39618 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Farid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Farid in connection with Case Crime No. 233 of 2018, under Sections 363,366,376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat.

¶6

Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

In this matter, the proseuctrix, who is a minor and charged the applicant with offences of rape, amongst others, and supported the allegations in the FIR by her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, during the ongoing trial being S.S.T. No. 60 of 2018, the prosecutrix deposing as PW-2 has disowned the prosecution story, wholesomely. She has stated that nobody abducted her. She has said that she was medically examined in the Government Hospital but does not know why she has been examined, and, why her statement was recorded at the police station. Upon being shown her statement made to the police, she said that these statements were recorded by the lady constable, at the dictation of the Daroga , and, she was asked to sign. Upon being confronted with her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she said that she had made that statement to the Magistrate at the bidding of the police and natives of the village. She has withstood her cross examination.

¶8

This Court looking to the stand of the prosecutrix had issued the following directions to the S.P., Bagpat on 12.10.2018:-

¶9

"Looking to the said allegations, the S.P., Baghpat will forthwith inquire into the matter and submit a report about the circumstances under which the victim was pressurized into giving a false statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., if that be so. In case, the victim is herself giving a false statement, now turning away from her earlier stand under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the S.P., Baghpat will apprise what proceedings have been taken against the victim for

¶10

giving false evidence."

¶11

The S.P. Bagpat has submitted a report to this Court, which is not on record, through the office, but a copy of the same addressed to the Registrar General had been produced by the learned A.G.A. The same is being retained on record. The report of the S.P. Bagpat is very lukewarm and does not show at all, any effort to locate the cause of change in the stance of the prosecutrix or a searching inquiry to find out, if in fact, the prosecution was false. The Court had indicated that in case the prosecution is false, the S.P., Bagpat may indicate what steps have been taken to draw proceedings against the prosecutrix, for giving false evidence. The report of the S.P., Bagpat shows that all that has been said about this issue, is concluded in a few words, which read (in Hindi vernacular) as under:-

¶12

“ihfMrk i{knzksgh gks x;h gSA bl lEcU/k es Fkkuk/;{k nks?kV o efgyk vkj{kh 757 uk0 iq0 jpuk dks lkFk ysdj eqdnes ds oknh@ ihfMrk ds firk bnjh'k o ihfMrk dq0 v'khZ ls lEidZ fd;k o iwNrkN dh x;h rks ihfMrk o mlds firk us crk;k fd eqfYTkeku ;k vU; fdlh ds

¶13

}kjk ge ij dksbZ ncko ugh cuk;k x;k gSA ihfMrk }kjk c;ku fcuk fdlh ncko ds ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k viuh ethZ ls fn;s x;s gSA

¶14

mDr okn vHkh ekuuh; U;k;ky; es fopkjk/khu gS rFkk ihfMrk Hkh ukckfyx gS tks ckyd dh Js.kh es vkrh gS] pwafd mDr izdj.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; es fopkjk/khu gS misf{kr dk;Zokgh ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds Lrj ls gh lEHko gSA iqfyl Lrj ls fopkj.k ds nkSjku dk;ZOkkgh fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gSA”

¶15

Though, this Court is seized of a bail matter, but it is indeed depressing to note the manner in which in such serious offences, no responsibility is being fixed either way. The S.P., Bagpat is ordered to bear caution in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as the evidence stands, the prosecutrix does not stand by the prosecution story. In these circumstances, there is no justification to detain the applicant in jail pending trial.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that so far as the dock evidence of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is exculpatory but this Court cannot look into it as that is within the province of the trial court.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the prosecutrix has wholesomely disowned the prosecution story so far in the ongoing trial, but without expressing any opinion

¶18

on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶19

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Farid involved in Case Crime No. 233 of 2018, under Sections 363,366,376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶22

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶24

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶25

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶27

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court as well as the S.P. Bagpat by the Registrar General.

¶28

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 BKM/-

Farid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Das Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Lalaram Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Aminuddin Vs State of U.P.