Allahabad High Court
Pranav Kumar @ Rinku vs State Of U.P. on 20 September, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182404 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37748 of 2023 Applicant :- Pranav Kumar @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sarvesh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Pranav Kumar @ Rinku, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 05 of 2003, under Sections 376, 302, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station-Paschim Sharira, District-Kaushambi during the pendency of trial.
4. It transpires from the record that an incident occurred in the night of 13-14.06.2003. Subsequent to above, an information dated 14.06.2003 was given at the concerned Police Station stating therein that the deceased namely-Gyanmati aged about 16 years has died as she committed suicide. The information so given at the concerned Police Station is on record at page 24 of the paper book. On the said information, the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted on 14.06.2003. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of deceased was characterized as suicidal. The post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted thereafter on 15.06.2003. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased, the cause of death of deceased was said to be Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:-
"1. A ligature mark 10 cm x 3 cm on front of neck, running transversely, at the level of thyroid cartilage present."
5. After expiry of a period of 1 month and 3 days from the date of the post mortem of the body of deceased, an application dated 18.07.2003 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by first informant-Bablu in the Court of concerned Magistrate praying therein that a direction be issued to the concerned Police Station to register the FIR in respect of the incident aforementioned. The said application came to be allowed by the concerned Magistrate. Resultantly, a delayed FIR dated 20.09.2003 came to be registered as Case Crime No. 05 of 2003, under Sections 376, 302, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station-Paschim Sharira, District-Kaushambi. In the aforesaid FIR, 5 persons namely - (1) Pranav Kumar @ Rinku (applicant herein), (2) Shiv Singh, (3) Purushottam Singh, (4) Bhanu Singh and (5) Dadu have been nominated as named accused.
6. Investigating Officer, on the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation, came to the conclusion that complicity of all the named accused is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 23.07.2004. After submission of the above-mentioned charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Magistrate. However, as offence complained of is exclusively triable by court of Sessions, concerned Magistrate, consequently committed the case to the court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Shiv Singh and Others) came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-9, Kaushambi.
7. The applicant, however, did not join the aforesaid proceedings and continue to abscond from the same. Resultantly, court of Sessions, which was trying aforementioned Sessions Trial in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C. segregated the trial of the present applicant. Resultantly, the trial of only 4 of the named/charge sheeted accused continued. Ultimately, the said trial resultant in the acquittal of the 4 named/charge sheeted accused vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2023 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge/Additional Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-9, Kaushambi.
8. It is at this belated stage that the applicant is alleged to have acquired knowledge of the aforementioned proceedings, therefore, he surrendered before court below on 31.07.2023.
9. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. It is true that the FIR was registered against applicant on 20.09.2003 and the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. charge sheet was submitted against applicant on 23.07.2004 and also the fact that since applicant absconded from the proceedings of trial, therefore, his trial was segregated yet, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Referring to the judgment and order dated 03.05.2023 passed by court below in aforementioned Sessions Trial, he submits that the prosecution itself could not prove the very story which it set out to prove. All the prosecution witnesses have been disbelieved. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the evidence which is to be relied upon by the prosecution has been examined in the furnace of cross examination but the same has not come out unscratched, therefore, prima-facie there is no credible evidence against applicant establishing his complicity in the crime in question. On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that irrespective of the adverse fact as noted above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
10. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 31.07.2023. The entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicant is a named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Much emphasis was laid on the adverse facts as noted above in opposition to the present application for bail. However, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
12. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made and complicity of accused coupled with the fact that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings has occurred in the house of the first informant himself, the information regarding the occurrence was reported from the side of the first informant at the concerned Police Station on 14.06.2023 in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 174A Cr.P.C. and it was admitted from the side of the first informant that the deceased had committed suicide, the post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on 15.06.2023 wherein it was opined by the Autopsy Surgeon that the cause of death of deceased is Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation, after expiry of a period of 1 month and 3 days from the date of post mortem, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 18.07.2003 was filed by the first informant, the charge sheet was submitted against all the named accused on 23.07.2004, thereafter, in the resulting trial as the applicant did not appear, his trial was segregated but all other 4 named/charge sheeted accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them by court below vide judgment and order dated 03.05.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Shiv Singh and Others), thus the prosecution could not establish the very story, which it set out to prove, the prosecution witnesses of fact have been disbelieved by the Court on account of being unworthy of reliance and unworthy of credit, therefore, irrespective of the adverse facts as noted above and pointed out by the counsel for first informant and the learned A.G.A. in vehement opposition to the present application for bail but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Pranav Kumar @ Rinku, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
15. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Vinay