In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding rape and POCSO charges, the Court rejected the plea for bail citing lack of good ground at the mid-trial stage despite observations in the impugned order regarding investigation discrepancies.
Bail application rejected; trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120292
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52801 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,A Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Pradeep @ Rinku, who is involved in Case Crime No. 255 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
On 25.05.2023 this Court, after hearing the argument of learned counsel for the applicant, passed the following order:-
"During the course of argument, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is well settled that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. shall prevail over the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated inter alia that accused-applicant has molested her but did not commit rape upon her. Even then, Investigating OfÏcer, after culmination of the investigation, submitted chargesheet under Section 376 IPC also against the applicant. It is also pointed out that the Investigating OfÏcer has not conducted fair investigation and in collusion with the complainant submitted charge-sheet dated 13.09.2022 against the applicant without putting the victim in the list of witnesses of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the applicant, apart from other arguments, also submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case because of his dispute with the parents of the victim over a money transaction.
In view of the above, Superintendent of Police, Bijnor shall file his personal afÏdavit after seeking instruction / explanation from the Investigating OfÏcer as to why the victim has not been made a witness of the charge-sheet and how the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 376 IPC when the victim in her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that no rape was committed upon her by the next date fixed in the matter, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court.
List this case on 30.05.2023 as fresh.
Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor without 24 hours."
Pursuant to aforesaid order of this Court dated 25.05.2023, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jaudan, Superintendent of Police, Bijnor has filed his personal afÏdavit dated 29.05.2023 and the same is taken on record. In the said afÏdavit, it is mentioned that in this case, after submission of charge-sheet, charge was already framed on 28.03.2023 for the offence under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act against the applicant and thereafter the statement of the victim/PW-2 was recorded on 22.05.2023 in which she has made allegation of rape against the applicant.
In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the day of passing the order dated 25.05.2023, he was not aware about the framing of charge against the applicant as well as the statement of the victim recorded before the trial court, therefore, he could not point out the same.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that two prosecution witnesses including the victim have been examined before the trial court. The victim has also levelled allegation of rape against the applicant. The trial of the applicant is proceeding, therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this mid stage of trial.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.
However the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others , (2018) 17 SCC 291.
Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant during mid-stage of trial in a rape case involving POCSO offences.
Whether discrepancies between the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the timing of the charge-sheet/framing of charges justify bail or expedited trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep @ Rinku
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Saurabh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
