High Court
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 186 of 2024 under sections 376D, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC and 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 P.S.- Chinhat District - Lucknow. As per the prosecution story, in the midnight of 26/27.04.2024 around 12:00 hours, the neighbours of the informant informed through telephonic call to the informant that three persons have entered in your house and your daughter seems to be alone and when she came back, she found that one of the accused Manish was lying naked with her daughter and Sunny as well as one unknown person were on standby at the door for watch. It has also been alleged that her daughter has been seduced by the accused persons and once they were caught, they started hurling abuses to her and also threatened for life. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the statement of the victim has demolished the story of the prosecution as is alleged in the first information report by the mother of the prosecutrix. In her statement, she alleged that one of the accused Subhnil Patel@Golu has committed rape with her whereas, Manish was found lying naked with the victim inside the room when the complainant visited her house on the information given by the villagers. Further the complainant has also changed her version before the learned trial court and has stated that it is Sunny Mishra who has committed rape and the other persons including the present applicant were stand by. He also added that there is not a single whisper that how the present applicant is involved in committing offence except apart, he was standby before the room where the incident is said to have taken place and it is also stated that there is no proof from any testimony that the present applicant has ever used force or to actively help the accused Sunny Mishra or Subhnil Patel. Further submission is that the statements of the alleged victim as well as the complainant/mother of the victim are not consistent and therefore, the trial would not lead to the punishment. He next added that due to some anonymity well known to the complainant, his name has been placed in the first information report. Next submission is that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 29.4.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submit that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is specific allegation for committing gang rape. He next added that the prosecutrix as well as the mother of the prosecutrix has named the applicant in their statement before the learned trial court, may be that the version is changed that who has committed rape, but the present applicant was also involved in the incident and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that complainant/mother of the prosecutrix claimed her to be an eye witness, as she has named the present applicant to be seen in naked situation inside the room alongwith her daughter whereas, this version has drastically been changed in her statement before the learned trial court as P.W.-2, as she stated that one of her relative Sunny Mishra has committed rape with her daughter and the present applicant including the other accused were on standby. This court has noticed that except apart the allegation of standby, there seems to be no use of force by the other co-accused persons and there seems to be no active participation. Further, the prosecutrix herself has changed her stand as she stated before the learned trial court that Subhnil Patel has committed rape with her. There seems to be several discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix as well as the complainant before the learned trial court and prima face, there seems to be inconsistency in the story of prosecution. I have also noticed that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 29.4.2024 and he has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Manish Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Mayank
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 186 of 2024 under sections 376D, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC and 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 P.S.- Chinhat District - Lucknow. As per the prosecution story, in the midnight of 26/27.04.2024 around 12:00 hours, the neighbours of the informant informed through telephonic call to the informant that three persons have entered in your house and your daughter seems to be alone and when she came back, she found that one of the accused Manish was lying naked with her daughter and Sunny as well as one unknown person were on standby at the door for watch. It has also been alleged that her daughter has been seduced by the accused persons and once they were caught, they started hurling abuses to her and also threatened for life. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the statement of the victim has demolished the story of the prosecution as is alleged in the first information report by the mother of the prosecutrix. In her statement, she alleged that one of the accused Subhnil Patel@Golu has committed rape with her whereas, Manish was found lying naked with the victim inside the room when the complainant visited her house on the information given by the villagers. Further the complainant has also changed her version before the learned trial court and has stated that it is Sunny Mishra who has committed rape and the other persons including the present applicant were stand by. He also added that there is not a single whisper that how the present applicant is involved in committing offence except apart, he was standby before the room where the incident is said to have taken place and it is also stated that there is no proof from any testimony that the present applicant has ever used force or to actively help the accused Sunny Mishra or Subhnil Patel. Further submission is that the statements of the alleged victim as well as the complainant/mother of the victim are not consistent and therefore, the trial would not lead to the punishment. He next added that due to some anonymity well known to the complainant, his name has been placed in the first information report. Next submission is that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 29.4.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submit that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is specific allegation for committing gang rape. He next added that the prosecutrix as well as the mother of the prosecutrix has named the applicant in their statement before the learned trial court, may be that the version is changed that who has committed rape, but the present applicant was also involved in the incident and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that complainant/mother of the prosecutrix claimed her to be an eye witness, as she has named the present applicant to be seen in naked situation inside the room alongwith her daughter whereas, this version has drastically been changed in her statement before the learned trial court as P.W.-2, as she stated that one of her relative Sunny Mishra has committed rape with her daughter and the present applicant including the other accused were on standby. This court has noticed that except apart the allegation of standby, there seems to be no use of force by the other co-accused persons and there seems to be no active participation. Further, the prosecutrix herself has changed her stand as she stated before the learned trial court that Subhnil Patel has committed rape with her. There seems to be several discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix as well as the complainant before the learned trial court and prima face, there seems to be inconsistency in the story of prosecution. I have also noticed that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 29.4.2024 and he has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Manish Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Mayank