While hearing the bail plea of one of the accused, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that although the victim had fully supported the prosecution’s case, the PP requested the court to declare the victim hostile.
Uttar Pradesh: The Allahabad High Court recently ordered action against a Public Prosecutor (PP) for allegedly acting under the influence of the accused in a criminal case involving violence against a 19-year-old student.
While hearing the bail plea of one of the accused, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that although the victim had fully supported the prosecution’s case, the PP requested the court to declare the victim hostile.
“When the victim was unequivocally supporting the prosecution, there was no reason for the public prosecutor to request that he be declared hostile, nor for the trial court to accept such a request. This conduct prima facie indicates that the PP acted under the influence of the accused to grant them undue advantage,”
the Court remarked.
BRIEF FACTS
The High Court directed the Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary (Law) of the Uttar Pradesh government to investigate the matter and take appropriate action against the public prosecutor as per the law.
“The Senior Registrar is instructed to communicate this order to the Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary (Law) and the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, to ensure compliance,”
the Court ordered.
The trial judge also faced criticism for allowing the request and scheduling multiple cross-examination dates for the victim, which led to him eventually altering his testimony to favor the accused.
“This raises serious concerns about the trial judge’s conduct,”
the Court stated, ordering the transfer of the trial to a different court to ensure an impartial hearing.
“The Sessions Judge, Lucknow, is directed to reassign Sessions Trial No. 747 of 2023 from the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, to another court to ensure the trial is conducted fairly and without any undue influence,” it further instructed.
Additionally, the Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Administrative Judge of Lucknow Judgeship for information.
The case, registered in October 2022, involved three individuals attacking the victim with a hockey stick, baseball bat, and iron rod. The victim required treatment in the Intensive Care Unit at Medanta Hospital.
Accused Yash Pratap Singh had filed a second bail application before the High Court, claiming that the victim had not supported the prosecution’s case. However, the Court found otherwise, noting that in the victim’s examination-in-chief spanning more than five pages he had indeed supported the prosecution.
Despite this, the PP requested the victim be declared hostile. The High Court highlighted that the victim’s testimony was spread across six different dates over two and a half months, contrary to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates continuous proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.
The victim’s statements were recorded on May 15, June 11, June 12, July 8, and July 31, 2024. Although the victim consistently supported the prosecution’s case, he changed his stance during the cross-examination by the applicant’s counsel on June 12, 2024.
The Court opined that the excessive delays and multiple adjournments gave the accused sufficient opportunity to influence the victim.
Consequently, the High Court denied bail to the accused, reasoning,
“If the victim is being influenced even while the accused is in custody, there is a serious risk of further witness tampering if the accused is released on bail.”
The accused was represented by Advocate Manish Kumar Tripathi, while Advocate Anant Pratap Singh appeared for the State.
Case Title: Yash Pratap Singh vs State of UP
