Allowed

Mangal Deep v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2023/1187/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail to Mangal Deep in an IPC and POCSO case where the victim turned hostile and clarified her age as 19, ruling that facts support enlargement provided social interest considerations regarding hostile witnesses are resolved by trial court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties; trial court directed to act under Section 344 Cr.P.C. against hostile victim.

Mangal Deep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37011

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1187 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mangal Deep

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Gulam Mustafa learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Shankar Maurya, learned Addl. Government Advocate, and perused the record.

¶8

By means of the instant application the applicant Mangal Deep S/o Bhagwan Deen, seeks bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2019, under sections 363, 366, 376, 506, I.P.C., and section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Bangarmau, District Unnao.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged on 21.05.2019 alleging that the applicant had enticed away the informant's daughter, aged about 14 years in the night of 17.05.2019.

¶10

In the statement of the victim recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., she has stated that she is aged about 19 years; that she was in a relationship with the applicant for the past three years and she has married him on 22.05.2019.

¶11

The victim has declined to undergo the medico-legal examination and as per her radiological examination, her age has been opined to be 19 years.

¶12

Before the Magistrate also, the victim has given the similar statement.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail-application, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the facts that the victim is minor and she has consistently stated that she had gone with the applicant and she married him out of her own freewill, without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant Mangal Deep S/o Bhagwan Deen be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 233 of 2019, under sections 363, 366, 376, 506, I.P.C., and section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Bangarmau, District Unnao, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned.

¶18

Before parting with this case, it is observed that in Hariom Sharma v. State of U.P., 2022 (120) ACC 251, a coordinate Bench of this Court had held as under:-

¶19

"10......Neither accused nor victim or any witnesses should be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood and

¶20

resort to contrivances, so as to make it theatre of the absurd. Dispensation of justice in a criminal trial is a serious issue and cannot be allowed to become a mockery by simply allowing prime prosecution witnesses /victims to turn hostile as a ground of acquittal. Complainants should also be accountable and should take responsibility on their shoulder.

¶21

Considering the societal interest, it is high time for the trial court to resort to Section 344 Cr.P.C in appropriate cases. In the present case since the prosecutrix before the trial Court has turned hostile and completely denied the prosecution version, therefore she is not entitled to the benefit of any compensation paid by the Government, which has been collected from the taxpayers of the country.

¶22

In view of the above trial Court shall consider the issuance of necessary direction against the alleged prosecutrix/ victim to refund the amount of compensation, if any received by her, in the appropriate head of the treasury account and shall also ensure the compliance of provisions of section 344 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage, if it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the court concerned within a week for compliance."

¶24

In the present case also the victim/ informant levelled an allegation of rape but subsequently she turned hostile and said that the alleged offence did not take place.

¶25

15.The trial court is directed to take action as per the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, in present matter also.

¶26

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶27

Order Date :- 24.5.2023/A.Nigam

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mangal Deep v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Deep v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

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

Laxman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and 3 Others

Maroof Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Brij Kumar @ Bhullu Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Lucknow

Ajay Gautam Alias Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Others