Allahabad High Court
Priyanshu @ Goodluck Raj Bharti ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1983 of 2020
Revisionist :- Priyanshu @ Goodluck Raj Bharti And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Anand Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Despite service of notice, no one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh and Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.6.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in Misc. Case No.10 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Priyanshu @ Goodluck Raj Bharti and another), arising out of Case Crime No.13 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pawai, District Azamgarh and impugned judgment and order dated 13.8.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Rape & POCSO Act), Court No.2, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2020 (Priyanshu @ Goodluck Raj Bharti and another Vs. State of U.P.).
It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionists that revisionists are juvenile and have been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. was lodged against applicants and two others with general allegations for assaulting with Lathi and Danda. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which also general role has been assigned against all four accused persons and it is not clear that who caused fatal injury to the deceased.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicants that co-accused Pramila has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.1.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37693 of 2020, copy of order has been produced for perusal which is taken on record. It is further submitted that role assigned to applicants is similar and identical to co-accused who has already been granted bail and as such the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He argues that admittedly, the revisionists are juvenile and while deciding the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board has solely considered the gravity of the offence alleged and had not even considered the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act'). He argues that the Appellate Court had committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the bail prayer.
I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who do not record any reasons as required in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.
Considering the age of the revisionists who are minor and in custody since 1.2.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 15.6.2020 and 13.8.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionists is also allowed.
Let revisionists Priyanshu alias Goodluck Raj Bharti and Dipika Bharti be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be accepted as a true copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 10.8.2021
Kpy
