Allahabad High Court
Soni vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1669 of 2021
Revisionist :- Soni
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Tiwari,Prabhakar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
This criminal revision has been preferred with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Juvenile Court/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2020 (Soni Vs. State), by which appeal of the revisionist was dismissed and the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2020 (State Vs. Soni), arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2020, under Section 304, 323, 504, 325 IPC, Police Station Dheena, District Chandauli, has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the the revisionist is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has next submitted that the revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order 10.06.2020, wherein she has been found to be less than 16 years.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has next drawn the attention of this Court to the Social Investigation Report submitted by the District Probation Officer, in which, he has clearly stated that the conduct of the revisionist is good and she has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of dispute between the parties over a piece of land.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that other co-accused Smt. Mansha Devi has already been granted bail and even according to the prosecution own case, fatal injuries has been caused by the co-accused Ramesh and no specific role of assault has been assigned to the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist and has held that in case, revisionist is released on bail, she may fall in the company of known and unknown criminals, however, no reason has been assigned by the Juvenile Justice Board to arrive at such a conclusion.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge has not given any convincing reason for rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and has held that in case, she is released on bail that may bring her into association with any known criminal or expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that her release would defeat the ends of justice.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that the revisionist is in juvenile home since 15.09.2020 and she has no other criminal history to her credit, as such, she be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the revisionist-applicant has made out a case for bail.
In view of the above, this criminal revision is allowed. Impugned orders dated 12.11.2020 and 20.10.2020 are set-aside and the bail application of the revisionist is allowed.
Let the revisionist Soni be released on bail in this case on furnishing an undertaking by natural guardian/real uncle Birendra Singh Yadav that he will take proper care over the revisionist and he will not allow her to go in the company of known criminals or expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger and he will also file a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021
Zafar
