Second bail application by an accused in a rape case after four witnesses were examined but trial not concluded within the directed period. The court found the prosecution case intact in the prosecutrix's statements and rejected bail, directing completion of the trial within four months.
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. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39300
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2816 of 2024
Applicant :- Vinod Goswami Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Shri Skand Bajpai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arpit Kumar, learned AGA for the State.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 24.07.2023 by a detailed order.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Vinod Goswami, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.265 of 2022, under Sections 376, 452, 323, 506, 342 I.P.C. Police Station Wazeerganj, District Gonda.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that till filing of the second bail application, four fact witnesses have been examined by the trial court and this Court had directed that the trial would be concluded within eight months. Now more than eight months have passed, but the trial has not been concluded. Learned counsel submitted that once the fact witnesses have been examined there is no question of tampering the evidence or threatening the witnesses and therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant is mason and poor person. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that before the trial court there are various contradictions, therefore, at the moment, the prosecution case becomes highly doubtful.
Learned counsel has submitted that the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and
calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2020) 3 SCC 443, para no.5.4.2.
On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the bail and he has submitted that the prosecutrix has been examined as PW1 and in cross examination as well as in examination-in-chief the prosecution case is intact and she has deposed that the applicant committed rape against her at the gun point. He has further submitted that there is no enmity between the applicant and the prosecutrix therefore, there is no likelihood that she has implicated the applicant falsely. It has been submitted that after looking into the statement of 164 Cr.P.C. and deposition before the trial court, the prosecution case is intact and minor contradictions cannot be a ground to release the applicant on bail.
Learned AGA has further submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar (Supra) stated above is not pertaining to bail rather it is a criminal appeal and the standard of the evidence which has been discussed in para 5.4.2 cannot be considered for the purposes of bail. He further submitted that the applicant is in jail for the last one year and ten months and this period is not sufÏcient to show any linency to the applicant because once the prosecution case is intact then the period of undergone is not a ground to release the applicant on bail.
Considering the arguments that the prosecution case is intact in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the deposition before the trial court by the prosecutrix, argument that there is no enmity between the applicant and prosecutrix and therefore, there is no chance of false implication, the second bail application of the applicant Vinod Goswami is hereby, rejected.
However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
The trial Court will not be influenced in any manner by the observations made above by this Court.
OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court forthwith.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024 Pks
Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second bail application of the accused in a rape case should be granted given four fact witnesses have been examined and the trial has exceeded eight months.
Whether alleged contradictions between the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and trial deposition make the prosecution case doubtful for bail purposes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh Prasad vs. State of BiharReferred
(2020) 3 SCC 443 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Goswami
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
