In a bail application involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act, the court allowed bail after noting that the victim and informant turned hostile during trial proceedings.
Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to appearance and non-interference conditions.
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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1575 of 2023
Applicant :- Ravi Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Secetary Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Sri Jhamman Lal, learned A.G.A. apprise the Court that on 16.1.2023 notice has been served to the informant. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the informant.
Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Jhamman Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2022, under Sections 354, 354, 354B, 376B IPC and Section 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Lohta, District- Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
F.I.R. of the present case was lodged against applicant under Sections 354, 354A, 354B IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act and according to the F.I.R. applicant was the tutor of the minor daughter of the informant aged about 10 year and on 9.8.2022 when informant arrived at home then witnessed that applicant was outraging the modesty of his minor daughter.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant was the tutor of the minor daughter of the informant and his 4 months' fees was pending with the complainant and when he pressurized him to pay the same then under retaliation he field a false F.I.R. against the applicant.
He further submits although initially the only allegation against the applicant was of outraging the modesty of minor daughter of informant and even she in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only stated that applicant was trying to outrage her modesty and in the mean time her parents arrived but when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded then she started alleging that applicant made aggravated sexual assault against her and this fact clearly suggests that on the instigation of her father i.e. informant
victim subsequently cooked up a false story in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
He further submits during trial victim and informant has been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and both did not support the prosecution case and victim categorically stated that applicant did not ever try to outrage her modesty and similar statement was given by the informant of the case. During the course of argument, he produced the certified copy of the statement of the informant (P.W. 1) and victim (P.W. 2) recorded by the trial court.
He further submits that the applicant in the present matter is in jail since 18.8.2022 i.e. for last about eight months.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that during trial victim of the case, who is although a minor girl, did not support the prosecution version and even informant of the case has turned hostile before the trial court.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
Although there is allegation against the applicant that being tutor of minor daughter of the informant, he made aggravated sexual assault against her and also tried to outrage her modesty but when victim appeared before the trial court as P.W.1 then she did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile and similarly from the certified copy of the statement of P.W.2 i.e. informant it appears that he also did not support the prosecution case and he was also turned hostile. Applicant in the present matter is in jail since 18.8.2022.
Therefore, from the discussions made above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Ravi Vishwakarma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Kumar Manish.
Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given that the victim and informant turned hostile during the trial.
Whether the bail conditions imposed adequately address the nature of the charges including offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
Ravi Vishwakarma
State Of Uttar Pradesh
Sameer Jain
Kumar Manish
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
