Allahabad High Court
Ashiq Ansari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1417 of 2021
Revisionist :- Ashiq Ansari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Himanshu Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed challenging order dated 14.5.2020 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, 1st, Kushinagar in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2020 (Ashiq Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 19.2.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No. 325 of 2019 under Section of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 147, 295, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Turkpatti, District Kushinagar was rejected.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that co-accused Javed (Minor) and Munna @ Salauddin Ansari (Minor) had already been granted bail and criminal revision were allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No.851 of 2020 and Criminal Revision No.849 of 2020 respectively. Copy of bail orders have been annexed as Annexure 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision. The role assigned to applicant is identical to role assigned to other co-accused who had already been granted bail and as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He argues that admittedly, the revisionist is a 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.
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 revisionist who is minor and in custody since 13.11.2019, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 14.5.2020 and 19.2.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Ashiq Ansari 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 :- 17.8.2021
S. Singh
