HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (A.F.R.) (Reserved) Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3642 of 2014 Revisionist :- Deepak @ Lala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Sudhir Kumar Agrawal Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.
Instant criminal revision, filed under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is directed against the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 9, Ghaziabad, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2014, filed under Section 52 of the Act thereby confirming the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, rejecting the prayer for bail of Deepak @ Lala in Case Crime No. 237 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 34, 454, 411, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
I have heard Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Briefly stated facts are that an F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and four others alleging that on 25.02.2013 at about 11:00 a.m., accused persons entered into the house of informant and resorted to indiscriminate firing, murdered Yashveer and caused injuries to informant Sriniwas. They also snatched the licensed revolver and rifle etc. Report was lodged on the same day after 45 Minutes at Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Deepak @ Lala was declared juvenile as his age was found to be 16 years 9 months. Application for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 31.07.2014 on the ground that juvenile was in close contact with known criminals and there is every possibility of his falling into moral and psychological danger. Order passed by Juvenile Justice Board was challenged by means of appeal. Appeal was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge on 16.10.2014. Both these orders have been impugned in this revision.
It has been submitted by learned counsel that revisionist is in observation home for more than two years and at the most he can be kept for three years, as such, he should be released on bail.
Next contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that co-accused persons have been granted bail.
Submission of Sri Sudhir Kumar Agrawal for respondent is that by playing fraud, declaration of juvenile has been obtained as school in which revisionist is said to have studied, was found to be nonexistent and the order declaring him juvenile has been challenged by means of criminal appeal which is pending before Sessions court.
Next submission is that report of Probation Officer is against the accused. Moreover, bail of co-accused has been obtained by fraudulent manner as Hon'ble Apex Court has cancelled the bail of co-accused. Moreover, revisionist has a long criminal history.
It is true that question of juvenility is engaging the attention of Sessions court in appeal. However, prayer for bail has to be considered treating him to be juvenile.
It was a broad day light incident in which report was lodged within 45 Minutes. Number of criminal cases are pending against the revisionist, is also not disputed. His brothers and members of family have a long criminal history is also not in dispute. Bail of Manoj was granted by this Court on the ground that he was assigned the role of assaulting injured witness who was not medically examined. Bail order of Kapil shows that he was granted bail because similarly situated Manoj, referred to above, was enlarged on bail. Budhpal has been granted bail on 04.12.2014 but matter has been taken to Hon'ble Apex Court by the prosecution in Special Leave Petition which is pending.
So far as, Mitthan is concerned, he was granted bail by this Court but Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.12.2014 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court directing him to surrender to custody forthwith. Hon'ble Apex Court looking to the criminal history of Mitthan Yadav, cancelled his bail in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8469 of 2014 (Crl. Appeal No. 2587 of 2014).
In this view of the matter, the ground of parity does not subsist.
It is true that gravity of offence cannot be the sole ground for refusing bail. In a case of this nature, court is faced with, can it be said that ends of justice would not be defeated by releasing the revisionist on bail ? Revisionist's brother and father both have a long criminal history. Revisionist himself has criminal history. Thus, he is in the company of criminals and is bound to be exposed to the moral and psychological danger.
It was submitted that revisionist alongwith his family members, in a brutal manner, killed an advocate and assaulted his other family members, which shows criminal mind set of revisionist.
Looking to the criminal background, report of Probationary Officer and the manner in which the offence has been committed, this Court is of the firm view that release of the revisionist would definitely defeat the ends of justice.
Learned counsel has cited a decision reported in the case of Sri Ram @ Bhalu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ALLCRIC-2012-77-322/JIC-2012-1-741].
It was not a case of broad day light murder and case turns on facts.
Case of Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [LAWS (ALL)-2012-5-129/ADJ-2012-7-78] is not applicable as learned Judge has held that there is no other material in support of the fact that revisionist would come into association with known criminal.
In the case of Arvind Kumar Misra @ Buddhu Vs. State of U.P. [LAW (ALL)-2012-2-149/ACC-2012-77-64], no principle of law has been laid down.
In the case of Ram Pal @ Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. [LAW(ALL)-2012-2-151/ACC-2012-77-75] and in the case of Parsum Vs. State of U.P. and others [LAW (ALL)-2015-4-267/LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-267], Probation Officer has not reported against the accused persons.
Prem Chand @ Monu Vs. State of U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-66/TLALL-2008-0-4], there is no quarrel with proposition of law that gravity of offence alone cannot be a ground for rejecting the bail application, as such, decision given in the case of Prem Chandra @ Monu has no application.
21. While dealing with the case of TADA reported in JT 2013 (6) SC 1 (Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Paras-376 and 377 while interpreting words "ends of justice" occurring in Section 12 of the Act, as under:-
"376. While dealing with such an issue, the court must not lose sight of the fact that meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to justice to all the parties. This phrase refers to the best interest of the public within the four corners of the statute. In fact, it means preservation of proper balance between the Constitutional/Statutory rights of an individual and rights of the people at large to have the law enforced. The "ends of justice" does not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice, but justice according to the law of the land. (Vide: State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma, [JT 1996 (3) SC 722 : AIR 1996 SC 1669]; and Mahadev Govind Gharge & Ors. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, [JT 2011 (6) SC 321 : (2011) 6 SCC 321]. 377. Thus, the law has to be interpreted in such a manner that it develops coherently in accordance with the principles, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice."
22. A citizen's claim to equality before the law is a claim of justice. Justice has been termed as the highest virtue. It has also been equated with fairness. Fairness connotes fairness to all i.e. equal treatment to all. Sense of injustice is a powerful human emotion. It is strongest when a person's own interests are harmed, but it also aroused in civilized people when they witness wrongs done to others. Ultimate object of every legal system is to secure justice which is at the centre of moral and social philosophy. The instinct for justice leads us to believe that right, and not might, is the true basis of society. The principles of justice that define duties and rights should be neutral with respect to compacting conception of good life. Defeat of ends of justice is bound to result in injustice which produces conflict within the individual and sets him at variance with himself and with all who are just. Injustice is inseparable from virtue which consist of ethics and justice in universal sense. Injustice in the particular sense is the injustice that causes harm to others. Virtue based approach connects justice to reflection about good life. This approach ensures that justice means giving people what they morally deserve-allocating goods to reward and promote virtue. It is thus apparent that the concept of justice lies at the heart of moral philosophy where righteousness, fairness and truth are the basic values and it should include people from all walks of life. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that wellbeing of the community takes precedence over the liberty and preventing injustice would always be a pursuit of justice. Leaving society to live with persons of perverted nature would be an affront to the dignity of human beings and tends to promote anarchy and unrest in society which is sure to defeat the ends of justice.
In view of discussion made above, Court does not find any error in the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board or Additional Sessions Judge.
Consequently, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
Revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8/9/2015 kkv/