Allahabad High Court
Raj Pandey @ Manish Pandey Thru. His Aunt ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko ... on 4 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:812 Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1139 of 2023 Revisionist :- Raj Pandey @ Manish Pandey Thru. His Aunt Sarita Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra,Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, challenging the validity of order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, Sultanpur, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 103/2023 filed by the revisionist against the order dated 07.07.2023.
3. The aforesaid case arises out of an F.I.R lodged on 22.05.2023 against three named persons, not including the revisionist and two unknown persons, stating that while the complainant was following his father at a distance of 10-15 feet, the accused persons intercepted his father and co-accused Mata Prasad Pandey fired a shot which hit the complainant's father on his chest and another co-accused Prince kicked him. The complainant categorically stated that he identified the accused persons in the light of a vehicle.
4. In the statement of the complainant recorded by the investigating officer also, he reiterated the F.I.R version.
5. During investigation, the investigating officer recorded statement of a suspect Rajeev Verma, who stated that he had heard from some undisclosed source that the revisionist had caused the incident.
6. When the complainant claims himself to be an eye-witness of the incident and he has assigned the role of firing to a co-accused person saying that he had seen that co-accused person firing the gun shot and he has not levelled any allegation against the revisionist and the revisionist has been implicated on the basis of statement of a suspect, who merely stated that he has heard about the revisionist's involvement in commission of the offence and he has not even disclosed the source from where he got this knowledge, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the revisionist on bail.
7. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The proceedings of the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, Sultanpur, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 103/2023 filed by the revisionist against the order dated 07.07.2023 are hereby quashed.
8. Let the revisionist- Raj Pandey @ Manish Pandey Thru. His Aunt Sarita Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur subject to the following conditions:-
(i) the natural guardian 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 guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;
(ii) natural guardian will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do.
(iii) juvenile accompanied by his natural guardian, will report to the Probation Officer on the first working day of every calendar month. The D.P.O. shall maintain a diary recording their attendance.
(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh.
9. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Preeti.