The Allahabad High Court recently ordered action against a Public Prosecutor (PP) for prima facie acting under the influence of accused in a criminal case relating to violence against a 19-year-old student [Yash Pratap Singh vs State of UP].
While hearing the bail plea of an accused, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi found that despite the victim having fully supported the prosecution case, the public prosecutor had made a request to declare him hostile.
“When the victim was fully supporting the prosecution case, neither there was any occasion for the public prosecutor to make a request for declaring him to be hostile nor was there any occasion for the trial Court to declare him to be hostile. It prima facie shows that the public prosecutor has acted under influence of the accused persons so as to give undue advantage to them,” the Court said.
It thus ordered Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary (Law) of Uttar Pradesh government to look into the matter and take suitable action against the public prosecutor in accordance with law.
"The Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary (Law) and the Sessions Judge, Lucknow to ensure its compliance," the Court ordered.
Further, the Court criticised the trial judge for accepting such a request and fixing various dates for cross-examination of the victim, during which he ultimately changed the statement to support the accused.
The High Court said it speaks volume about the conduct of the trial judge and thus ordered transfer of trial to a different court.
“The Sessions Judge, Lucknow is directed to transfer Sessions Trial No. 747 of 2023 from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Lucknow to some other Court to ensure that the trial is conduct fairly, without any undue influence at the behest of the accused persons,” the Court ordered.
The Court also directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to Administrative Judge of Lucknow Judgeship for information. The Administrative Judge is a High Court judge.
As per the case registered in October 2022, three accused had attacked the victim with hockey-stick, baseball-bat and iron rod. The injured was later treated at the Intensive Care Unit of Medanta Hospital.
One of the accused Yash Pratap Singh recently moved the High Court with a second bail plea stating that the victim had not supported the prosecution case. The victim’s statement was brought on record.
The Court found that the victim had fully supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief which ran into more than five pages.
However, the PP even then had made a request for declaring him hostile. After that, the Court noted that the examination of the victim was conducted on six dates ranging across two and a half months.
“Although Section 309 Cr.P.C. provides that proceedings should continue from day-to-day until all witnesses have been examined yet the statement of the victim has been recorded on 15.05.2024, 11.06.2024, 12.06.2024, 08.07.2024 and 31.07.2024. Apparently, the victim has supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded on all the dates, except in the cross examination conducted by the Counsel for the applicant on 12.06.2024,” the Court found.
It opined that the long period of time which was consumed in recording the victim’s statement and adjournment of case on numerous occasions, had given the accused persons an opportunity to influence the victim.
Thus, the Court rejected the bail application of the accused.
"When the victim is being influenced at the behest of the accused persons even while the applicant is in custody, the possibility of the witnesses being influenced in case of release of the applicant on bail is very grave. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail," it reasoned.
Advocate Manish Kumar Tripathi represented the accused.
Advocate Anant Pratap Singh represented the State.
[Read Order]