Allahabad High Court
Talib Ansari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 100
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 1 Reserved On:-12.12.2019 Delivered On:-14.01.2020 In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2136 of 2019 Revisionist :- Talib Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Bhushan Tiwari,Navin Kumar Tiwari,Sufiya Bano Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connect with Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2133 of 2019 Revisionist :- Talib Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Bhushan Tiwari,Navin Kumar Tiwari,Sufiya Bano Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
The Criminal Revision No. 2136 of 2019, under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the judgement and order dated 11.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mau in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2019 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau, rejecting the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist in Case Crime No. 454 of 2018, under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D I.P.C. and Section 5/7 of S.B.S. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District- Mau.
The Criminal Revision No. 2133 of 2019, under Section 102 of the Act is directed against the judgement and order dated 27.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, 2 Mau in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2019 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order dated 19.04.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau, rejecting the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist in Case Crime No.454 of 2018, under Section 121A I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District-Mau.
Both the aforesaid revisions are filed by the revisionist Talib Ansari s/o Matloob Ansari through his mother Tabassum Ara with prayer to enlarge him on bail in different sections of Case Crime No. 454 of 2018. Both the revisions are related to each other, they are based on common facts and point of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgement.
Heard Sri Rajiv Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Sufiya Bano, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri V. K. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned order along with entire material on record.
The relevant facts for disposal of both the revisions are that F.I.R. was lodged on 06.10.2018 by Police Inspector against the revisionist and co-accused Mohd. Usman and Mohd. Mansoor registered as Case Crime No. 454 of 2018, under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D I.P.C. and Section 5/7 of S.B.S. Act. After investigation the charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist and three others under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 121A of I.P.C. and Section 5/7 S.B.S. Act [Specific Bank Note (Cessation of Liability) Act] 2017.
The revisionist claimed juvenility and has been declared juvenile by order dated 07.01.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau.
The bail application on behalf of the revisionist through his mother Tabassum Ara in Case Crime No. 454 of 2018, under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and Section 5/7 S.B.S. Act was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Mau which was rejected by order dated 28.01.2019. The Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2019 was preferred before the 3 Sessions Judge, Mau on behalf of the revisionist which was dismissed by the order dated 11.04.2019. Against the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge, Mau and order dated 28.01.2019 of Juvenile Justice Board, Mau, Revision No. 2136 of 2019 has been filed before this Court under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
A separate bail application for the offence under Section 121A I.P.C. of aforesaid case crime no. 454 of 2018 was directed on behalf of the revisionist through his mother before Juvenile Justice Board, Mau which was rejected by order dated 19.04.2019. Against the aforesaid order of J.J. Board, Mau, Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2019 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Mau which was dismissed by order dated 27.04.2019, against the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2019 of Sessions Judge, Mau and order dated 19.04.2019 passed by J.J. Board, Mau. Criminal Revision No. 2133 of 2019 has been preferred on behalf of the revisionist under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, learned Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Court rejected the prayer of bail of the revisionist illegally on the grounds that there was no effective control of his parents over the revisionist and in the event the revisionist was released on bail there would be possibility of him going into company of known and unknown criminals; there is chance of his exposure to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that neither J.J. Board nor Appellate Court has given basis to arrive on such a conclusion. The report of the probation officer is not supported with any evidence, reasonings in both the impugned orders are very much superficial and not convincing. Revisionist is detained in this offence since 06.10.2018. The impugned orders have not been passed in keeping the spirit of law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile. It is also submitted that 4 Mohd. Mansoor has been enlarged on bail by order dated 02.08.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10981 of 2019 and other co-accused have also been enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail of the revisionist and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. The revisionist was actively involved with co-accused in commission of this heinous offence, 50 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- have also been recovered from his possession but learned A.G.A. has not disputed that all the co-accused including Mohd. Mansoor have already been enlarged on bail in this offence by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
The provision of bail to juvenile is given in section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Section 12 (1) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provides that:-
"When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Baord, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."
Though the alleged offence is of heinous nature but there is nothing in social investigation report of the revisionist as mentioned in impugned order of J.J. Board, Mau 5 which may suggest that releasing him on bail would defeat the ends of justice. There is no adverse report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the revisionist or of his family members.
There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by releasing him on bail, revisionist will come in association with any known criminal or his release will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
The revisionist is detained in this offence since 06.10.2018. All the co-accused of this offence have already been enlarged on bail.
In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist, learned Sessions Judge, Mau also does not appear to have considered the provision of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective and the impugned orders of both the revisions are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside.
In the result, Criminal Revision No. 2136 of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mau in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2019 and order dated 28.01.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau in Case Crime No. 454 of 2018 (State Vs. Talib Ansari), under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D I.P.C. and Section 5/7 of S.B.S. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District- Mau is hereby set aside and bail application filed on behalf of the revisionist stands allowed.
The Criminal Revision No. 2133 of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mau in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2019 and order dated 19.04.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau in Case Crime No. 454 of 2018 (Talib Ansari Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 121A of I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali. District Mau is hereby set aside and the bail application filed on behalf of the revisionist stands allowed.
Let the revisionist, Talib Ansari through his mother Tabassum Ara be released on bail in 6 Case Crime No. 454 of 2018, under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 121A I.P.C. and Section 5/7 S.B.S. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Mau, on his mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mau subject to the following condition:
(1) The guardian of the revisionist, his mother will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that she will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
Order Date :- 14.01.2020 Rahul.