Allahabad High Court
Vikas Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1931
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1030 of 2020 Revisionist :- Vikas Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Sheo Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2019 (Vikas Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), by which, prayer for bail of the applicant was rejected, affirming the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 335 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikas Yadav), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 506, 34, 120-B IPC, Police Station Khajani, District Gorakhpur, by which, prayer for bail of the applicant was rejected.
As per the Office report dated 28.08.2020, notice has been served upon the Opposite Party No.2 in person, however, despite being served, none has appeared on his behalf.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that District Probation Officer has not reported any adverse remark against the applicant and has only stated that in case, applicant is released on bail, he may fall in the bad company of known and unknown criminals, for which, there is no reasonable basis.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that after receiving the report dated 26.08.2019 from the District Probation Officer, Juvenile Justice Board has declared the revisionist-applicant as juvenile vide order dated 14.08.2019.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has next submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist-applicant and has held that in case, revisionist-applicant is released on bail, he may fall in the company of known and unknown criminals, however, no reason has been assigned by the Juvenile Justice Board to arrive at such a conclusion.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has next submitted that ordinarily such a juvenile is released on bail, unless his case falls within the purview of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has next submitted that Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge has not given any convincing reason for rejecting the bail application of the revisionist-applicant and has held that in case, he is released on bail that may bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has next submitted that the revisionist-applicant is in Protective Home since 23.12.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit, as such, he be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the revisionist-applicant has made out a case for bail.
In view of the above, this criminal revision is allowed. Impugned orders dated 10.01.2020 and 12.09.2019 are set-aside and the bail application of the revisionist-applicant is allowed.
Let the revisionist-applicant Vikas Yadav be released on bail in this case on furnishing an undertaking by guardian mother that she will take proper care over the revisionist-applicant and she will not allow him to go in the company of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and she will also file a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Nadim