Allowed

Ram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2024/4688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 376-D, 342, 294 IPC and 5(G)/6 POCSO Act, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court relied on major contradictions in the victim's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the prosecution's malicious intent to allow release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ram Singh is released on bail in FIR No. 20 of 2024, on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43883

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4688 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Singh

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhagwati Prasad Nigam,Anurag Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

However, none is present on behalf of the complainant.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 20 of 2024, under Sections 376-D, 342, 294 IPC and 5(G)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Tandiyawan, District Hardoi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that a F.I.R. No. 266 of 2022 was lodged against the informant of the present case along with other family members on 02.07.2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Tandiyawan, District Hardoi, in which, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating OfÏcer and the trial is going on. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that informant of the present case was making pressure on the applicant's side for compromise, but when the same was denied, he moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of concocted facts, alleging that in the night of 22.08.2022, when the victim went to visit a fair at 8.00 p.m., she was abducted by the applicant and other accused persons and brought her into forest and committed rape. When she raised alarm, her family members reached on the spot, on which, the accused persons went away from there while giving life

¶11

threat.

¶12

During the course of investigation, statements of the victim were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant along with co-accused brought her to a forest and committed rape with her. However, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that the applicant inserted his finger into her private part. Thereafter, she came back to her house and narrated the incident to her mother, on which, her parents went to the police on the next day. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is major contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other witnesses and the prosecution is a malicious one. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 22.02.2024. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but does not dispute the fact that there is contradiction in the statements of victim and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she was brought in a forest by the accused persons and the applicant inserted his finger into her private part. Thereafter, she was again brought to the fair and leaving her there, the accused persons went away.

¶14

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that as per the prosecution case as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim was

¶15

abducted from the fair by the accused persons and was brought in a forest, where they committed rape with her and on her alarm, her family members reached there. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she was brought in the forest by the accused persons and the inserted his finger into her private part. Evidently, there is major contradiction in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶16

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Application stands allowed.

¶18

Let applicant -Ram Singh be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 20 of 2024, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶23

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶24

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 20.6.2024 VKS

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yuvraj Alias Kukki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Shiv Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mangal Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Atul Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Chhotey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Anoop Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another