Pawan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10995 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1148 of 2019
 

 
Revisionist :- Pawan Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar,Chetan Chatterjee,Ravi Sahu,Shailendra Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Jain
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Counter affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Sahu, holding brief of Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

No one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

This revision has been filed challenging order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar whereby the bail application of the revisionist was rejected in Case Crime No. 0137 of 2018, under Sections 376-D/323 IPC, and Section 3 (2) (v) of Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, and the order dated 25.01.2019 dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2018 by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Act, Kanpur Nagar.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist/applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that admittedly the revisionist/applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused. He was not identified by the victim and even in the statement of victim recoded under section 164 Cr.P.C the name of applicant was not disclosed. It is submitted that co-accused Harshit Tiwari has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 21.10.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1384 of 2020. The case of the revisionist is on similar footing and the revisionist/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 19.08.2018, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 11.12.2018 and 25.01.2019 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.

Let revisionist Pawan Singh 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 :- 27.8.2021

Vikram