Application for bail challenging serious charges involving IPC and POCSO offences. Court noted inconsistencies in case version and hostile prosecution witnesses. Bail granted subject to bond and conditions.
Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend trial and not tamper with witnesses.
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. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40726 of 2021
Applicant :- Karan Singh @ Dalla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Mahtab Alam,Neeraj Seerotiya,Saif Naseem
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The accused applicant, Karan Singh @ Dalla is involved in Case Crime No. 300 of 2020, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 377 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act registered at Police Station Raya, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the first information report the place of incident is shown to be the house, whereas in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the place of incident has been shown to be temple premises. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also the place of incident is shown to be temple premises. The first information report has been registered under Section 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C. only. It is only for the first time came in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused committed wrong with him. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also the version of doing wrong from the back side is repeated. Thus, there is contradiction regarding place of occurrence in the first information report and the statement of the victim. In the first information report there is no mention of any wrong done with the victim.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also invited attention of the court towards the statement of the victim and first informant recorded during trial in the lower court wherein both the victim and first informant have not supported the prosecution case. Both have been declared to be hostile and nothing incriminatory has come in their cross examination. The accused is reported to be in custody since 30.09.2020. Hence, the prayer for bail is made.
Per contra, the bail application has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the attention of the court has been drawn towards the medical report of the victim and the statement of the doctor
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein swelling and blood are found inside the anal of the victim and on the statement of the doctor Section 377 I.P.C. is added to the case. The attention of the court has further been drawn towards the statement of the independent witness Babbu @ Bablu recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that when he was passing through the bajra field he heard the cry of the victim. When he entered in the field he saw the present accused doing wrong with the victim. When he asked him that what was he doing then the accused fled away tying his pant and the victim went back to his home. On the basis of medical examination of the victim and the statement of the doctor the bail application of the applicant has been opposed.
From the record, it is clear that in the first information report the place of incident is shown to be house and in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.c. the place of incident is shown to be bajra field and in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. again the place of incident is changed and here the place of occurrence is mentioned to be temple. The statement of the victim and the first informant both are on record wherein during trial in the lower court the victim and the first informant have not supported the prosecution case. Both of them have become hostile. The victim has stated that he got injured when he fell down and he has specifically denied that the accused Karan Singh committed any wrong with him. the offence is triable by the Magistrate. The accused is in custody since 30.09.2020.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant - Karan Singh @ Dalla, who is involved in aforesaid 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:-
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 16.3.2022 gp
Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.03.16 17:03:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused deserves bail despite charges of sexual offence under IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether inconsistencies in FIR and contradictions in prosecution witness statements preclude bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶12
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Karan Singh @ Dalla
Sadhna Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
