Allahabad High Court
Annu Singh @ Pahalwan vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97816
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4629 of 2023
Applicant :- Annu Singh @ Pahalwan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Devendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
By means of this third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant Annu Singh @ Pahalwan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 1122 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Naubasta, district Kanpur City, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
The first and second bail applications of the applicant have been rejected vide order dated 20.01.2021 and 17.09.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 30085 of 2020 and 24687 of 2021.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 02.12.2019, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shahjad Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7840 of 2022, decided on 31.10.2022, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that five prosecution witnesses including the victim have been examined before the trial Court and the victim in her examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution case making allegation of rape against the applicant, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is not liable to be allowed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, 05 prosecution witnesses including the victim have been examined. It is also not in dispute that the victim before the trial Court has also made allegation of rape against the applicant. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the victim was consenting party with the applicant is concerned, this Court is of the view that it is well settled that conclusion from the statement of a witness can be drawn considering his/her statement as a whole and not only by picking up some words from here and there. This Court at this stage in exercise of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. does not deem it appropriate to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution in detail as allegation and defence of the accused is still open to be urged before the trial Court. So far as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shahjad (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, I find that facts of the said case are entirely different, therefore said judgment is not helpful to the applicant. This Court is also of the view that each case depends upon its own facts. Even a little difference between two cases may alter the entire aspect of the case. In the light of statement of the victim as noted above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
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 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 :- 8.5.2023
Shubham
