Allahabad High Court
Mahendra @ Tinkoo vs State Of U.P. & Another on 9 May, 2011
Bench: Vinod Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1971 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahendra @ Tinkoo
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- R.P.S. Chauhan
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.
Heard Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned learned AGA for respondent no.1-State and perused the impugned order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly in crime no.161 of 2010 and subsequent order dated 16.4.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2011, Mahendra @ Tinkoo Vs. State.
By former order dated 19.1.2011, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly has rejected the bail prayer of the revisionist in crime no.161 of 2010, under sections 147, 148, 302, IPC, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly.
By the subsequent order lower Appellate Court also concurred with the bail rejection order. The primary ground on which the bail prayer of the revisionist has been rejected is that bail to the revisionist would defeat ends of justice.
Background facts as are evident from the pleadings made in the instant revision and two impugned orders indicate that the incident of knifing the deceased Isrile occurred on 3.3.2010 at 6.30 p.m. in respect of which the FIR was got lodged on 4.3.2010 at 8.30 a.m. Subsequently, it was detected that the revisionist along with his other socio-criminis associates had knifed him and had caused as many as 18 knife injuries. Prior to it all of them had consumed liquor and intoxicated themselves.
It is further revealed that in the present crime, not only the revisionist but his father is also involved as an assailant and murderer and is languishing in jail.
It was in the background of the aforesaid facts, that the bail prayer of the revisionist has been rejected which order has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailed the impugned orders for the reason that the same appellate court in another case relied upon the same report submitted before the Board and has granted bail to the revisionist. He further contended that the FIR is ante timed and ante dated. The version in the FIR is that the deceased has lost his life at 2.00 a.m. in the night, the FIR was lodged at 8.30 a.m. and infact the deceased died in the hospital at 8.45 a.m. It was additionally submitted that it is a case which occurred when curfew in District Bareilly was clamped and therefore, some unknown persons could have murdered the deceased and revisionist has been falsely implicated.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that since the revisionist was allowed bail on the basis of the same report by the Probation Officer, there was no reason for the Juvenile Justice Board and the lower Appellate Court to reject the bail prayer of the revisionist.
Learned AGA argued to the contrary.
Record of the revision indicates that the submission that the revisionist has been allowed bail earlier vide order dated 1.4.2011 passed in criminal appeal no.12 of 2011, Mahendra @ Tinkoo Vs. State of U.P. (Vide Annexure No.6) is of no help to the revisionist for the reason that there is no parallel between the two cases. The incident in which the revisionist has been allowed bail was a case relating to the police encounter in which nobody had sustained any injury. No recovery of any weapon was made from the revisionist. In that incident, the main accused was Virendra from whom a country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. Prosecution failed to bring on record any material before the lower Appellate Court which could have indicated that the revisionist has committed an offence under Section 307, IPC and since it was a case of no injury in a police encounter, under the aforesaid facts keeping into consideration the report of the District Probation Officer, the lower Appellate Court granted him bail in the aforesaid appeal no.12 of 2011.
The facts in the present case, however, are entirely different. Here, the father and son consumed liquor along with two other associates, caught hold the deceased and stabbed as many as 18 times. There cannot be any parallel between the two situations. The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the lower Appellate Court, on such facts, concluded that if the revisionist will be allowed to be released on bail, it will defeat the very purpose of the Act. The opinion of the Board and the Appellate Court cannot be said to be illegal. Bail prayer of the revisionist has not been rejected for the reason that the nature of crime is grave but it has been rejected for the reason that if allowed bail, the purpose of justice will be defeated for which Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000 has been enacted. Moreover, it transpires, as has been stated above, father of the revisionist is also an accused in the murder case. He is languishing in jail. If bail would have been allowed to the revisionist, he would have fallen in the company of same assailants. On the overall picture, the case of the revisionist was not found to be fit for release on bail.
Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon an order passed by this court in criminal revision no.5094 of 2010, Veerpal Vs. State of U.P. dated 17.1.2011.
I have perused the aforesaid decision which has got altogether a different fact scenario. That was a case which related to dowry death in between the close relatives. In such fact, another Judge of this court was of the opinion that the bail should not have been rejected looking to the gravity of the offence. However, what is important to note is that while passing the said order the Judge itself has observed in the aforesaid decision as follows:-
"The bail application of a juvenile can only be rejected on the ground enumerated under Section 12 of the Act. In the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, there is no advertence what is to say consideration of provisions of Section 12 of the Act."
It was primarily because of the aforesaid reason, that the bail was granted to the accused Veerpal in the aforesaid case. That is not the situation here.The juvenile Justice Board as well as the lower Appellate Court specifically adverted to the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, considered it in its pros and cons and then rejected the bail. In the opinion of the Board, as is clear from the impugned order dated 19.1.2011, is that after looking into the entire facts in scenario, if the accused is released on bail, the purpose of the Act will be defeated. For a psychological and mental development, his retention in the juvenile home was a desirable necessity. Learned Appellate Court also considered Section 12 of the aforesaid Act in all its pros and cons and has deliberated it which fact is perceptible in the order dated 16.4.2011.
Wrapping up the discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision, which stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2011
T. Sinha
