Allahabad High Court
Ram Prasad Yadav @ Ram Prakash Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 21 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1398 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Prasad Yadav @ Ram Prakash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi,Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
As per the report of the office dated 24.2.2021 which is based on a communication sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur of date 22.2.2021, opposite party no.2 has been served. In the order of this Court dated 29.6.2022, it was stated that Sri Rajiv Raman Srivastava has filed his 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of opposite party no.2 but his name has not been shown in the cause list. However, the office vide its report dated 11.7.2022 has clarified that no 'Vakalatnama' has been filed by Sri Rajiv Raman Srivastava on behalf of opposite party no.2. Thus, it appears that though opposite party no.2 has been sufficiently served, she is not represented.
Heard Sri Sanjay Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Ram Prasad Yadav @ Ram Prakash Yadav for grant of bail, in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 339 of 2020 under Section 376 A, B, 504 IPC and 5(Da)/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur District Sitapur, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the informant or the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of the instant case was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix on 24.11.2020 at Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur against the applicant mentioning therein that on 21.11.2020 her daughter aged about 8 years had gone to the Medical Store of the applicant where he molested her daughter. The statements of the prosecutrix under Section 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded wherein she made the allegation against the applicant that he had placed his finger in her private part while injecting medicine to her. The medical report of the prosecutrix did not reflect any injury either external or internal and the hymen of the prosecutrix was found intact and as per the opinion of the doctor, there was no sign of use of force or forceful penetration.
Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that when the medicine was being injected to the prosecutrix she felt pain and had raised alarm whereon the informant had inferred that the prosecutrix had been molested. It is vehemently submitted that the age of the prosecutrix has been assessed as 8 years on the date and time of the incident and therefore, she was of a very tender age and perhaps has been guided by her family members. However, during the course of trial, the statements of the informant as well as of the prosecutrix were recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 and the informant in her statement recorded before the trial court has not supported the version of the prosecution and in her cross-examination she had stated that she was annoyed with the applicant as he had injected a wrong medicine to her daughter and the application, on the basis of which the FIR was lodged, was prepared in the 'kutchery' and the same was not read over to her. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded before the trial court as PW-2 had categorically disowned her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC and in her cross-examination she had stated that when the medicine was being injected to her by the applicant, she felt pain and that is why she had approached her mother crying at that point of time.
Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that neither the informant nor the prosecutrix has supported the allegation of molestation or rape and it is evident that the FIR has been lodged on account of some misconception and the prosecutrix being of a very tender age has been guided by her family members and she has not supported the version of the prosecution in court. It is also submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 25.11.2020 and he is not having any previous criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is the accused of committing heinous crime with a girl of a very tender age and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that though in the FIR and in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as of the informant recorded under Section 161 CrPC the allegation of molestation and placing finger in the private part of the prosecutrix has been levelled but the prosecutrix and the informant have been testified before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-2 and while the prosecutrix has chosen not to support the version of the prosecution, the informant in her cross-examination stated that she was annoyed by the fact that a wrong medicine was injected by the applicant to the prosecutrix in a wrong manner. The prosecutrix in her statement had not levelled any allegation either of molestation or of rape against the applicant. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that having regard to the fact that the informant and the prosecutrix have not supported the version of the prosecution, the prosecution in any case could not secure the conviction of the applicant. Applicant is in jail in this case since 25.11.2020 without any criminal antecedents and the presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the applicant- Ram Prasad Yadav @ Ram Prakash Yadav involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 21.7.2022 SP