Allahabad High Court
Chandrar Alias Ram Chandar Paswan ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:36368
Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12764 of 2022
Applicant :- Chandrar Alias Ram Chandar Paswan Alias Munnu Lal Paswan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Shukla,Amar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravish Chandra Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.105 of 2022, under Sections 376DA, 341, 354B, 394, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 and 9/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station Harriya, District Balrampur.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix in which he has leveled allegations of gang rape. It is further submitted that DNA report has been obtained and on the basis of same, the DNA profile is not generated and the DNA of the applicant is not matching with the DNA of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that medical report is not supporting the prosecution case and statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also does not support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the presence of the prosecutrix at the place of occurrence is doubtful. It is next submitted that statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is against the version of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. rather it appears that it is a case of outraging modesty. He has submitted that in the statement of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4, there are various contradictions and the place of occurrence is doubtful.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that it is a gang rape case and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of all the six prosecutrix were recorded wherein prosecutrix no.1 has stated that co-accused Rajendra had raped her and thereafter she has further stated that prosecutrix no.2 was also raped by Ram Chandar Paswan and Rakesh. Prosecutrix No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have also deposed before the court and in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., allegations of rape have been levelled against all the three accused persons. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 have been recorded and all the prosecutrix have also supported the prosecution case and have levelled the allegations of rape. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that it is a gang rape against the minor girls which has been committed by all the accused persons with common intention. They have tied the prosecutrix with the trees and thereafter committed rape. The prosecution case, from the F.I.R. and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the trial court is intact. He further submitted that on minor contradictions, the bail may not be granted. It is also submitted that report of DNA is not going to support the accused applicant for the reason that though profile is not generated and DNA is not matching, pertaining to clothes of the accused applicant and clothes of the prosecutrix, therefore, it does not falsify the prosecution case. The statement of all the prosecutrix before the trial court indicates that the rape has been committed and the prosecution is intact.
5. After hearing both the parties and going through the statement of the six prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., indicates that the gang rape was committed by the applicant. All six prosecutrix in their examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination have deposed before the court that rape was committed by the applicant and other co-accused one by one by tying them in the tree. The argument of DNA cannot be a sole ground to give benefit, which is a matter of trial at the final stage. Statements of all six prosecutrix will also be considered at the time of final judgment. It is also relevant to mention here that six prosecutrix have been examined before the trial court and the trial is still going on and all of them have supported the prosecution case, as such, at this stage the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
7. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously to say within ten months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties unless there is any legal impediment by the higher Court.
8. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court immediately by the office.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023
Saurabh
