Allahabad High Court
Anmol Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1053 of 2021
Revisionist :- Anmol Dwivedi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Mishra
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for revisionist/petitioner, Sri Nagendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and Sri Dinesh Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist/petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 08.04.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2021 and Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 07 of 2021, in pursuance of Case Crime No. 401 of 2020 under Sections 302, 201, 404 IPC, Police Station-Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi.
3. Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi submits that FIR in Case Crime No. 401 of 2020 was registered at Police Station-Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi under Sections 302, 201 IPC against unknown person on account of murder of son of the complainant namely, Mohd. Tahir, aged about 18 years. It is submitted that after ten days of the incident, statements of one of the so called witness of last seen was recorded, who informed that he had seen the victim along with the present revisionist/petitioner, termed as 'X', whose identity is being protected in view of the direction given by the Supreme Court in case of Shilpa Mittal vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others; AIR 2020 SC 405, on the fateful. It is submitted that on the basis of such omnibus statements of last seen, present revisionist/petitioner 'X', has been falsely implicated.
4. Sri Nagendra Srivastava, in his turn, submits that present revisionist/petitioner 'X' has a criminal history of five cases including the present one and reading from order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 07 of 2021, it is pointed out that District Probationary Officer has categorically reported that the activities of the juvenile 'X', who is a person in conflict with law, is cause of anguish amongst neighbourers. He further noted that physical, psychological and moral danger appears to be eminent on the juvenile in conflict with law and there is a history of five cases including the present one namely,
(i) Case Crime No. 252 of 2019 under Sections 379, 411 IPC.
(ii) Case Crime No. 255 of 2019 under Sections 41, 411, 413, 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
(iii) Case Crime No. 361 of 2019 under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
(iv) Case Crime No. 056 of 2020 under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.
(v) Present one is, Case Crime No. 401 of 2020 under Sections 302, 201, 404 IPC.
5. At this stage, Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi submits that in all the previous cases, revisionist/petitioner is already on bail.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident from the report of the District Probationary Officer that the antecedents of the present revisionist/petitioner, as have been noted by the Juvenile Justice Board in its order dated 16.03.2021 and looking to the criminal history of the juvenile in conflict with law, when ratio of law laid down in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand; AIR 1977 SC 2447, then it is apparent that circumstances of criminal history suggests that revisionist has potentional to create other troubles in the shape of repeating offences, this is not a fit case to enlarge the revisionist/petitioner on bail, especially, when provisions of Sections 15(1) and 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are taken into consideration.
7. In above terms, revision petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021
Vikram/-
