Allahabad High Court
X(M) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 June, 2022
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 205 of 2022 Revisionist :- X(M) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
The instant revision has been preferred beyond time by 2 days alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
I have perused the averments made in the affidavit in support of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay has satisfactorily been explained, and as such, the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is condoned.
Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision.
Heard Mr. Phool Singh Yadav learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 4.9.2021 passed by Additional Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2021 (Rohit @ Deshraj vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.88 of 2020, under Sections 323, 304, 504 IPC, Police Station Malwan, District Fatehpur as well as against the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur.
As per allegation, on 12.05.2020 the revisionist alongwith other co-accused persons have beaten the deceased by Kicks & Fits, Lathi and Danda due to which he received serious head injury and was admitted in district hospital and later on died on 28.5.2020.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that it is a cross case. In the alleged incident, two persons have also received injuries from the side of the revisionist. The revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. It is further contended that there are general allegations against the revisionist and no specific allegation has been assigned to him. The revisionist has no criminal history to his credit. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn attention of the Court towards Social Investigating Report submitted by the authority in which the conduct of the revisionist has been mentioned.
It is further submitted that revisionist was declared as juvenile in conflict of law on 07.11.2020 but even that both the court below were failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile; only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and it has been consistent view of various courts; the Board or the lower appellate court has not given any reason or material on record which shows that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger, that his release would defeat the ends of justice; and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The revisionist is in jail since 07.07.2020.
It is next contended that revisionist has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed without there being any substance. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was juvenile i.e. 16 years, 06 months and 27 days on the date of incident on the date of incident i.e. 12.05.2020. It is further argued that once the person has already been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail.
It is next argued on behalf of revisionist that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act for rejection of bail application. He further submits that the orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any concrete reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically. He further submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer discloses that the revisionist has no criminal tendency nor has any criminal history on record and the said fact has not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.
It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed, impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist-Rohit @ Deshraj be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.88 of 2020, under Sections 323, 304, 504 IPC, Police Station Malwan, District Fatehpur on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to following conditions:-
(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 8.6.2022 Ajeet