Allahabad High Court Orders Disciplinary Action Against Public Prosecutor for Aiding Accused; Criticizes Trial Judge

The Allahabad High Court has recently ordered disciplinary action against a Public Prosecutor (PP) after observing that he appeared to act under the influence of the accused in a case involving violence against a 19-year-old student in Yash Pratap Singh vs State of UP. The case came to the attention of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi while hearing a bail plea, during which he found that despite the victim’s full support of the prosecution, the PP had sought to have him declared hostile.

Justice Vidyarthi noted that there was no reason for the PP to request that the victim be deemed hostile, nor for the trial court to accept this request, given the victim’s consistent support of the prosecution. The Court inferred that the PP’s actions may have been aimed at unduly benefiting the accused and directed the Legal Remembrancer/Principal Secretary (Law) of the Uttar Pradesh government to investigate the matter and initiate suitable action against the PP in line with legal requirements. Additionally, the Senior Registrar was instructed to communicate this order to ensure compliance by the authorities.

The Court further criticized the trial judge for granting the PP’s request and allowing multiple dates for the victim’s cross-examination, during which the victim eventually altered his statement in favor of the accused. Expressing concern over the trial judge’s conduct, the Court ordered the transfer of the case to a different court to ensure a fair trial without undue influence. The Sessions Judge of Lucknow was directed to reassign the case from Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Lucknow.

As part of the procedural directions, a copy of the judgment was also sent to the Administrative Judge of the Lucknow Judgeship. The case, registered in October 2022, involved three accused who allegedly attacked the victim with a hockey stick, baseball bat, and iron rod, causing severe injuries that required intensive care treatment.

One of the accused, Yash Pratap Singh, had recently applied for bail on grounds that the victim had not supported the prosecution. However, the High Court found that the victim had initially provided a detailed statement backing the prosecution case. Despite this, the PP requested that the victim be declared hostile, and the victim’s examination was prolonged over six dates from May to July 2024. The Court observed that such delays could have allowed the accused to influence the victim, which likely impacted his cross-examination response on June 12, 2024.

Given the risk of witness tampering even with the accused in custody, the Court denied the bail application, concluding that the release of the accused could lead to further interference with the trial process. The accused was represented by Advocate Manish Kumar Tripathi, while Advocate Anant Pratap Singh represented the State.