Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 August, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166537 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13002 of 2023 Applicant :- Ghanshyam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ubaidur Rehman Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ubaidur Rehman, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ghanshyam Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Complaint Case No. 23 of 2017, under Section 376 IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Jataha Bazar, District Kushinagar.
4. An application dated 07.10.2016 under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant Ghanshyam Singh and other persons alleging therein that on 28.8.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. her grand-daughter aged about 6 years, had gone to temple to see aarti where Ghanshyam Singh (the applicant) residing near the temple, on the pretext of giving prasad and toffee called her inside his house. He made her sit on his lap and took out her underwear and rubbed her private parts and inserted his finger in her private part, after which her grand-daughter started crying then he left her and told her not to tell about it to anyone. Her grand-daughter came back home running and told about the incident to her and her parents after which they went to the house of Ghanshyam Singh to lodge a complaint. Then Ghanshyam Singh and his father Mohan Pyare Singh threw her on the ground, assaulted her and abused her due to which she suffered fracture of her finger for which she was treated in the District Hospital, Kushinagar. She made an attempt to lodge a report at the police station but no action was taken after which a report was sent to the S.P. concerned through registered post but even then no action was taken and then the present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved which was directed to be treated as complaint, on which the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of the victim as P.W.1, Smt. Poonam the mother of the victim as P.W.-2, Pawan Kushwaha the father of the victim as P.W.-3 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and two other witnesses namely Nagendra Gaur as P.W.-4 and Bhutel Sharma as P.W.-5 were also inquired under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Subsequently the trial court vide order dated 5.1.2018 summoned the applicant for the offence under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 5m/6 POCSO Act and also under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. and the co-accused Mohan Pyare Singh was summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the complaint states of a totally false and incorrect allegations. While placing para-11 of the affidavit it is argued that prior to the present incident there was a case registered between the family members of the applicant and the complainant in the court of S.D.M., Padrauna, District Kushinagar as Case No. 1949/2016, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. on 2.8.2016 which was the reason for false implication of the applicant and the co-accused in the present case. It is further argued while placing para- 13 of the affidavit that there was compromise entered into between the parties on 24.11.2022, copy of the said compromise has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 8 to the affidavit. It is argued that the applicant is a student and preparing for competitive examination, para-16 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. Further it is argued that the victim was not medically examined and no ossification test was conducted, para-15 of the affidavit has been placed to buttress the said argument. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history except the present case and Case No. 1949/2016, under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. He is in jail since 3.2.2023.
6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in the complaint the victim is stated to be about 6 years of age. She was examined as P.W.-1 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before the trial court wherein she supported the prosecution case. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and the trial court has summoned the applicant by a speaking order. It is argued that even after summoning vide order dated 5.1.2018, he continued to abscond and after five years of summoning on 3.2.2023 he could be sent to jail. It is argued that as such the bail application of the applicant be rejected.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the complaint and there are allegations against him. The victim is aged about six years as per the complaint. She has supported the prosecution case being examined as P.W.-1.
8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 18.8.2023 Naresh