Allowed

Prashant Kumar Mishra @ Prashant Mishra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022/7856/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Allahabad allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7856 of 2020 for Prashant Kumar Mishra. The court quashed the order rejecting bail, citing contradictions in prosecution evidence, medical report discrediting assault allegations, and parity with a juvenile co-accused, stating the case lacks convincing material against release.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties executing conditions including appearance and non-tampering with evidence.

Prashant Kumar Mishra @ Prashant Mishra Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7856 of 2020 Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Mishra @ Prashant Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Roshan Dubey,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶4

This case is taken up in the revised call.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today in court. The same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Notice has been served on opposite party No.2, but none appears on her behalf in revised call.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 318 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 342 I.P.C.and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Tarun, District Faizabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village rivalry and enmity. No such incident took place, as alleged by the prosecution. The entire prosecution story has been set up only with the intention to defame the image of the applicant and his entire family in the society. He further submits that the applicant has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the story as has been cooked up by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. regarding allegation of rape could also not be believed in the background of the fact that she though had stated to have raised alarm, but it is hardly to believe that during night hours any villagers would come to rescue her especially in the village. He further submits that as per medical report, the age of the prosecutrix is 14 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was given on the pressure created by the family members of the victim, whereas the narration of the F.I.R. discloses some other story that shows that the entire statement of the victim was given under pressure of the family members and an allegation was levelled against the applicant and other

¶11

co-accused.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation as levelled in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. also got demolished, after perusal of the medical report as the doctor in his report opined that no definite opinion regarding resent sexual assault can be given, however the doctor has opined that there is no external or internal injury was found on the private part of the victim or any part of the body, However, it was stated that the hymen was intact and no injury was found. He further submits that as per the medical report, the entire allegation of victim that the applicant has committed rape with her is demolished.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that the other co-accused, namely Manish Kumar Pandey, against whom the main allegation of committing rape, was assigned and who was declared juvenile was already granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2021, therefore, the case of the applicant is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused who has already granted bail by this Court, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered and he should also be released on bail on principles of parity.

¶14

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history, which has been explained in para 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the applicant is in jail since 21.08.2020 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant is involved in the heinous crime and his bail application may be rejected.

¶16

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of

¶17

detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that there is vast contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161, 164 Cr.P.C.and the version of the F.I.R. and the allegation of rape got demolished after perusal of the medical report, as the doctor in his report opined that no definite opinion regarding resent sexual assault can be given, however the doctor has opined that there is no external or internal injury was found on the private part of the victim or any part of the body and the coaccused, against whom the main allegation of committing rape, was assigned was already granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Prashant Kumar Mishra alias Prasant Mishra involved in Case Crime No. 318 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 342 I.P.C.and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Tarun, District Faizabad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶20

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶21

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶22

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(6) The applicant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is 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.

¶26

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶30

Order Date :- 10.8.2022

¶31

Arvind

¶32

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.11 16:38:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prashant Kumar Mishra @ Prashant Mishra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Mishra @ Prashant Mishra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Major Bail Cancellation Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Alias Opendra Yadav S/O Raj Kishor Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Abdul Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Ritesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav S/O Sri Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Shanti Devi W/O Rakesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home