Allahabad High Court
Nitish Bansal @ Nikki vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1016 of 2021
Revisionist :- Nitish Bansal @ Nikki
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey
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 Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.1.2021 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar in Bail Application No.68 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar and impugned judgment and order dated 17.3.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2021 (Nitish Bansal @ Nikki Vs. State of U.P.).
It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist is juvenile and has been falsely implicated in this case. The revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. The only evidence against the revisionist on which basis he has been implicated in this case is CDR which only shows the presence of applicant near the place of occurrence and apart from this there is no other evidence regarding involvement of applicant in this case. It is further submitted that co-accused Vikky Sharma and Sachin Tiwari have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.2.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4858 of 2020 and 4986 of 2020, respectively and copies of bail orders have been collectively filed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of criminal revision. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the revisionist that he had committed the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and it is a case of false implication of revisionist. 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. The revisionist has no other criminal history and is in custody since 10.7.2020.
Learned A.G.A. has 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 revisionist who is minor and in custody since 10.7.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 8.1.2021 and 17.3.2021 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Nitish Bansal @ Nikki 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.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021
Kpy
