Allahabad High Court
Chaman Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 July, 2013
Bench: Kalimullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7077 of 2013
Applicant :- Chaman Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Upadhyay,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Anupama Prashar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Vivek .K.Singh
Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It is second bail application made on behalf of accused applicant, whose first bail application has been rejected on merit, vide order dated 31.1.2012.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the present accused applicant had earlier lodged an FIR against Keshav Kohli and some other miscreants regarding the same incident with the allegation that Keshav and other accused had fired at the prosecutrix which hit in her shoulder and also committed rape upon her. However, on the same day, another FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix herself making accusation against the present accused applicant and three others that they had committed rape upon her. It was also averred therein that present accused applicant has illicit relations with her for about 6 to 7 months. During the course of investigation, her statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she supported the prosecution version as embedded in the FIR. After completing the investigation, I.O. submitted the chargesheet. During the course of trial, prosecution examined her and she has been declared hostile during the cross-examination made by learned counsel for the applicant wherein she has stated that she has made accusation of rape and causing injury against the accused applicant under the pressure of her parents and gave clean chit to the accused applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. has submitted that the present accused applicant has a long criminal history. He had illicit relations with the prosecurix for about 6 to 7 months as a result of which she conceived pregnancy and since the applicant is a bad element, therefore, with intent to extort money from Keshav Kohli and other co-accused, first of all, he cooked up a false case by causing firearm injury at her person and then falsely lodged an FIR against Keshav Kohli and others but that FIR was expunged and on the FIR lodged on the same day by the prosecutrix herself, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant. During the course of trial, when she came for her examination in chief before the trial court at least on half of dozen dates adjournments were sought by applicant on one pretext or the other to get her hostile. However, lastly, she was examined in chief in which she supported the prosecution story in toto but still learned counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine her as a result of which the opportunity of cross-examination was closed. After about 8 to 9 months, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was made by the applicant to recall the prosecutrix for cross-examination. The said application was allowed and thereafter she was subjected to cross-examination by learned counsel for the applicant wherein she did not support the prosecution story and stated that she had made statement against the applicant under undue pressure of her parents. According to him, this is not sufficient ground for releasing the applicant on bail because the factum of hostility of the prosecutrix has come up due to ingenuity of the applicant himself. It is he on whose duress and threat, allurement etc. prosecutrix appears to have turned hostile. However, she has made application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that the statement given by her during her cross-examination made by learned counsel for the applicant was an outcome of a duress and threat extended by the applicant for dire consequences in case she again supports the prosecution story. Apart from it, the cross-examination of the prosecutrix is still continued at the instance of learned Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal).
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is my considered view that no one can get benefit of his own mischief. The aforesaid facts and circumstances under which the prosecutrix appears to have turned hostile would be another incriminating circumstance against him while disposing of the trial on merit.
Such type of conduct and practice adopted by the applicant accused in getting the prosecutrix turned hostile and compelling her not to support the prosecution version cannot be made the basis of the order for releasing the accused applicant on bail.
Bail is refused. Application for bail stands rejected. However, it is made clear that trial court should not be influenced otherwise by the observations made by this court in this bail application although he is free to take its own view after considering the entire scenario of the case.
Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage has requested this court to make certain directions to the trial court to conclude the trial within time bound frame. On the other hand, learned counsel for the prosectrix has asked for some police protection to the victim during her cross examination before the trial court.
Learned trial court is directed to ensure the full and sufficient police protection to the prosecutrix as and when he calls for her cross examination in the court and make its endeavour best to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 4.7.2013
m.a.
