Allowed

Mainuddin Alias Bade Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2023/352/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of the accused. The Court granted bail noting that the victim turned hostile and denied the offence during cross-examination where nothing adverse emerged. The Court directed the trial court to consider refunding any compensation received by the hostile victim.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties subject to not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing witnesses, and appearing in court.

Mainuddin Alias Bade Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32738

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 352 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mainuddin Alias Bade Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in in Case Crime No. 0191 of 2020, under Sections 363, 458, 506, 366, 342, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur. The first bail application was rejected for want of prosecution by means of an order dated 27.09.2022 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7822 of 2020.

¶9

Subsequent to rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the statement of the victim has been recorded by the trial court and she has been declared hostile. Even in the crossexamination by the prosecution counsel nothing adverse to the applicant came to light.

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact the informant has turned

¶12

hostile during her cross-examination before the trial court, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Mainuddin Alias Bade Babu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0191 of 2020, under Sections 363, 458, 506, 366, 342, 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

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:-

¶20

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

¶21

should take responsibility on their shoulder.

¶22

11. 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.

¶23

12. 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.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Preeti.

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mainuddin Alias Bade Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainuddin Alias Bade Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 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

Mohd. Shafi Alias Bhayawa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and Ors. Lko 3 Other

Rajesh Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Invetigation Lko.

Jalaluddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Akhilesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko.

Vijay Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Sudhir Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.