IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to Section 309 Cr.P.C. for timely witness examination to prevent undue influence and ensure justice in criminal trials.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. This is the second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 668 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 16.10.2022 at 16:38 hrs. against three named persons, including the applicant, and an unknown person stating that all the accused persons, carrying hockey-stick, baseball-bat and iron rod, had attacked the informant’s nephew, causing serious injury to him. The injured was being treated in the Intensive Care Unit of Medanta Hospital.

4. The State has filed a counter-affidavit against the first bail application No. 14054 of 2022, annexing therewith the complete medical-papers of the victim showing that initially he was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where he was managed conservatively and thereafter he was shifted to Medanta Hospital. He had complaints of pain and swelling over left eye, pain and swelling over left cheek and contused lacerated wound on head occipital region. He was bleeding from left ear.

5. In the statement of the victim recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. he categorically stated that co-accused Aryan Srivastava had started arguing with him and the applicant hit him with a baseball bat. Aryan Srivastava has been granted bail by means of an order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

6. The first application No. 14054 of 2022 was rejected by means of an order dated 26.07.2023 after taking into consideration the nature of allegations, the nature of injury suffered by the victim and the recovery made from the applicant. This Court had also considered the fact that the applicant is a 19 years old student, who was preparing for competitive examination, he had appeared in NEET (UG), 2022 Examination and he had achieved good percentage. This Court had also considered the fact that the only allegation against the co-accused Aryan Srivastava was that he had started an argument with the victim, whereas there is a specific allegation against the applicant that he had assaulted the victim with a baseball-bat on his head, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

7. The second application has been filed on the ground that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded by the trial Court. A copy of the statement of the victim has been brought on record along with a supplementary affidavit dated 11.09.2024. A perusal of the statement of the victim, who has been examined as PW-2, indicates that the victim has fully supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief which runs into more than five pages. However, when the victim was fully supporting the prosecution case and not even two pages of examination-in-chief of the victim had been recorded, the learned public prosecutor made a request for declaring the witness to be hostile and strangely, the trial Court accepted this request. Even after accepting the request for declaring the victim to be hostile, his examination-in-chief continued to be recorded and he kept on fully supporting the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief recorded on 15.05.2024. Thereafter PW-2 was cross-examined by the counsel for co-accused Nishant which remained inconclusive and it was resumed after 15 days on 30.05.2024 and in that part of the cross-examination, no major discrepancy came to light in the statement of the victim.

8. Further cross-examination of the victim was conducted on 11.06.2024, i.e. after 11 days and PW-2 was cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant on 12.06.2024. During this cross-examination, the victim changed his stand and stated that although the applicant was present at the place of incident, he had not