Public Prosecutor Acted Under Influence Of Accused: Allahabad HC Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused; Directs Suitable Action Against Public Prosecutor

The Court found “no good ground” to grant bail to the accused, who assaulted the victim with a baseball bat on the head for offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The accused argued that he was entitled to bail since the victim had turned hostile. However, the Court observed that the victim was fully supporting the prosecution's case and despite this, the public prosecutor requested the victim be declared hostile—a request that was, strangely, accepted by the trial court.

A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi stated, “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.”

Advocate Manish Kumar Tripathi appeared for the applicant, while AGA Anant Pratap Singh represented the opposite party.

The High Court noted that three accused persons, including the present accused and one unknown person, armed with a hockey stick, baseball bat, and iron rods, had attacked the victim, causing him serious injuries that required admission to the Intensive Care Unit of a hospital. The Court observed that, despite the victim fully supporting the prosecution case in his recorded statement, the public prosecutor nonetheless requested that the victim be declared 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 found.

The Bench noted that the long time consumed by the trial Court in recording the statement of the victim and adjournment granted on numerous occasions for long durations gave the accused an opportunity to influence the victim.

The Court observed, “The approach adopted by the trial Court in accepting the request of the public prosecutor to declare the victim to be hostile, even when he was fully supporting the prosecution case, speaks volume about the conduct of the presiding officer of the Court.”

Consequently, the Court directed, “Keeping in view the aforesaid conduct of the public prosecutor in making a request for declaring PW-2 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge…to be hostile even when he was fully supporting the prosecution case, the Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary (Law) is directed to look into this matter and take suitable action against the public prosecutor in the aforesaid case in accordance with law.”

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the second bail application.

Cause Title: Yash Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:70324)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Manish Kumar Tripathi and Aditya Vikram Singh

Opposite Party: AGA Anant Pratap Singh

Click here to read/download the Order