Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4463 of 2017 Applicant :- Bantu @ Jitendra Pratap Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Saran
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail filed on behalf of Bantu @ Jitendra Pratap Verma in Case Crime No. 279 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 376 I.P.C and Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, P.S. Gursahayganj, District- Kannauj.
Heard Sri Lavlesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as learned AGA for the State.
This is a case based on circumstantial evidence where the victim, a young child of 9 years, is said to have been ravished by the applicant, Bantu @ Jitendra Pratap Verma. The evidence appearing against the applicant is that of last seen on the credit of a child witnesses, Ram Rani and one Arvind Verma and there is no other evidence except that of last seen which by itself is not enough to keep the applicant in jail pending trial as the learned counsel for the applicant submits.
This was precisely the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant on 06.3.2018, when the learned counsel for the complainant Sri Vinay Saran had pointed out that there were injuries to the private parts of the victim of which samples were taken from the dead body for DNA profiling and sent to the FSL, Lucknow on 20.7.2016. It was pointed out that the report of FSL, Lucknow about the DNA analysis was not available even though it was of prime importance.
Looking to the aforesaid facts, the S.P. Kannauj was directed to secure the DNA report from the concerned FSL. It appears, thereafter, that this case went into a vortex of rigmarole between the investigating agency and the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory who apparently were directed (the FSL) to submit the requisite DNA analysis report to the investigating agency.
An affidavit indicating their helplessness was filed on behalf of the investigating agency by the S.P. Kannauj dated 6.3.2018 where it was indicated that the FSL, Lucknow has informed that the sample was being analyzed on priority basis but due to some technical problem, the DNA report could not be drawn up.
Looking to the fact that the non-availability of the DNA report was apparently hampering the disposal of this bail application, this Court summoned the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow who had written a memo to the S.P. Kannauj indicating delay in submission of the DNA report to explain her stand.
Today Dr. Farhat Shaheen, Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow is present and she has placed the original DNA profiling report dated 28.3.2018 before this Court signed by her which clearly shows that the DNA samples that were sent to the FSL for profiling do not match the acknowledged specimens. The original DNA report dated 28.3.2018 is being retained on record.
In sum and substance, therefore, the connection, prima facie, of the accused to the crime at this stage cannot be said to be established. The Court, however, makes it bold to add that anything said in this order will not prejudice the rights of both sides before the trial court and the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at their own conclusion based on evidence, scientific and substantive, including their conclusions about the DNA analysis.
Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA have in one voice opposed the plea for bail saying that it is a case where a heinous offence has come to pass and a young child has been ravished and done to death. However, learned AGA does not dispute the findings recorded in the DNA report that have been extracted above.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, the fact that the case is one based entirely on circumstantial evidence with the only circumstance against the applicant being dealt that of last seen, the DNA profiling report not showing prima facie, the complicity of the applicant but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicant Bantu @ Jitendra Pratap Verma involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing personal bonds and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded strictly and positively within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar V. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Siddhant Sahu