Allahabad High Court
Sameer (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 22 February, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1649 of 2020
Revisionist :- Sameer (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act against the judgment and order dated 19.9.2018 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/VIIIth Additional District Sessions Judge, District Bareilly dismissing the criminal appeal no. 145 of 2018 (Sameer vs. State of U.P. ) and the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in case crime no. 717 of 2018 under section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by Shariq Ahmad, the prosecution case is that on 10.6.2018 at about 11.00 A.M., his brother Gulzar (deceased) had a quarrel with the accused-revisionist and other co-accused, thereafter both of them had gone and on the same night they again came and the accused-revisionist had caught hold of the deceased while co-accused Faisal had assaulted by knife at his nipple and thereafter he again made an assault at his abdomen and the third injury was caused at the left thigh, thereafter they fled from the place of occurrence. As per post-mortem report, the deceased is found to have sustained six injuries.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the informant, who is an eye witness of this case, has himself stated that the revisionist's role is that of catching hold and other co-accused Faisal, who is main accused, had assaulted the deceased by which he had died. Moreover, the revisionist is found to be 14 years of age, hence he was juvenile on the date of occurrence which finds mention in paragraph no. 7 of the appellate court order dated 19.9.2018. Further it is argued by him that as per section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile is required to be released on bail if there appears that his release is not likely to bring him in association with some known criminal or that he would not be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. He has also drawn attention to the report of District Probation Officer, Bareilly, which is annexed at page 72-78 of the paper book in which nothing adverse has been mentioned by the District Probation Officer against the revisionist. All these facts have been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court, hence the revisionist deserves to be allowed on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the release of revisionist on bail .
In consideration of bail of a juvenile, the seriousness of the offence is not to be seen. The three considerations which are laid down in law, are that his release on bail should not bring him in association with any known criminal or that it should not expose him to any moral, physical and psychological threat and or ends of justice should not be defeated by his release. No evidence has been produced before the forums below which could lead them to draw those conclusions. Both the forums have dismissed the bail application of the accused only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and on the nature of offence being serious.
Looking to the fact that the revisionist is found to be a juvenile of 14 years of age in conflict with law at the time of occurrence and nothing having been found against him in the report of District Probation Officer, hence this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail.
In view of above, this court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 09.08.2018 as well as order dated 19.9.2018 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Sameer (Minor) be released on bail during trial on his father Rayees Miyan furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board with condition that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and that on each and every date of trial, he shall also appear before the court concerned. In case, he makes any default, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021
AU
