This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The court held that the grounds regarding contradictory witness statements were already considered and rejected in the first application. The trial court, not the bail court, must evaluate evidence contradictions. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2870 of 2020
Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Pal,Ritesh Srivastava,Shweta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This is Second Bail Application by the applicant, Pravesh Kumar, in Case Crime No.0199 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act of Police Station, Amanpur, District Kasganj. First Bail Application was rejected vide order dated 23.5.2019, while entertaining Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12874 of 2019, Pravesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.
Additional ground for this Second Bail Application is recording of statements of witnesses during trial, wherein, there is a contradiction in the statement of PW-2 and prosecutorix, PW-1, who in her statement has said that she could not identify accused. He was not known to her prior to above date, rather, he was implicated upon initiation of her parents.
Learned counsel for applicant argued that first bail application, moved by the applicant, was rejected, as above, thereafter, trial began, wherein, prosecutorix was examined as PW-1 and she, in her cross-examination, had collapsed case of prosecution that she was not aware of accused prior to date of occurrence, which was said to be of 29.6.2018 and report of which was got lodged on 14.7.2018. It was a delayed report. The statement in cross-examination, as of PW-1, is against entire case of prosecution. This too is fortified with the statement of PW-2, informant, who, in his cross-examination, had material variation with the case of prosecution. On these grounds bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed this Bail Application with this contention that the
prosecutorix, PW-1, in her examination-in-chief, had categorically supported case of prosecution and statement previously recorded, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has been admitted by her of her own, given, under her own volition. Even in crossexamination, there is corroboration of this testimony, with a little variation, which seems to be natural variation because the prosecutorix is a minor and she has categorically said her age to be 14 years. The testimony of PW-2 is with this fact that informant lodged this report for alleged rape by accused with her minor daughter. He, since beginning, has said that he was not aware of the occurrence, rather, whatever was narrated to him by his wife, which was said by the prosecutorix to her mother, that was got written in the first information report. Hence, Bail Application be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials on record, it is apparent that entire grounds were taken in the first Bail Application, which were considered and first Bail Application was rejected.
The only ground is about statements recorded during trial.
From very perusal of the statement of PW-1, it is apparent that in her examination-in-chief, she is fully intact and had corroborated her previous statement, recorded, under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. In corss-examination, she had differed from her statement, regarding identity of accused with this contention that she was not previously aware of the accused, whereas, prosecution case is that the accused is next door neighbour of the informant and prosecutorix. Hence, this statement is to be analysed and appreciated by the Trial court, while judicial making decision and this Court, while deciding Bail Application, is not to analyse merit of the evidence because it may prejudice fair trial.
Under all above facts and circumstances, no ground is made out in this Second Bail Application for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this Second Bail Application stands dismissed.
However, the Trial court to expedite the trial.
Order Date :- 29.1.2020 bgs/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any new and sufficient ground for bail is made out despite the rejection of the first bail application on identical grounds.
What standard of proof applies to contradictions in witness statements when deciding a bail application versus at trial.
Pravesh Kumar
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
