Allowed

Manjesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2023/6671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application in a rape and POCSO case where the victim later turned hostile. The judgment directed the trial court to seek refund of compensation paid to the hostile victim and enforce Section 344 Cr.P.C. compliance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; trial court directed to refund compensation to hostile victim and enforce Section 344 Cr.P.C.

Manjesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35467

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6671 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manjesh

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Abhinav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

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

¶9

By means of the instant application the applicant Manjesh S/o Ram Kishun Pasi seeks bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under section 376, I.P.C., and section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Sursa, District Hardoi.

¶10

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged on 15.05.2022 alleging that the applicant had raped the informant's daughter at about 8 p.m. on 14.05.2022.

¶11

In the medico-legal examination report of the victim no mark of injury has been reported on any part of her body and no definite opinion has been given about the alleged sexual assault.

¶12

Statement of the victim has been recorded by the Trial Court and although she has supported the F.I.R. version in her examination-in-chief, in her cross-examination she categorically declined from the incident.

¶13

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application it has

¶14

been stated that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶15

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

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the facts that the allegations are not supported either by the medico-legal examination report or by the statement of the victim having already been recorded, in case of the applicant's release, he will not be in a position to influence the victim, 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.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Manjesh S/o Ram Kishun Pasi be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under section 376, I.P.C., and section 3/4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, P.S. Sursa, District Hardoi, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned.

¶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 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

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 :- 22.5.2023 A.Nigam

¶28

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

Manjesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. 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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sudha and others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Thru Its Branch Manager Vs Rinki Davi and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Throu Its Div. Manager Vs Balwant Singh and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Secrt. Lko.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Lko. and 3 Others

Sonu Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others