Allahabad High Court
Harendra Kumar @ Nate @ Rudra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1178 of 2020
Revisionist :- Harendra Kumar @ Nate @ Rudra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shesh Nath Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Shesh Nath Singh Yadav learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.
Notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2 but none has appeared from his side.
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 08.06.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO)-1, Ghazipur rejecting the criminal appeal no. 36 of 2020 of the revisionist and order dated 13.11.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in case crime no.603 of 2019 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by Rustam, the prosecution case is that on 8.10.2019 at about 7.15 p.m., his son Monu along with his companions namely, Haidar, Deepak, Rudal, Shakti and Mohil and some other boys had gone to see Dussehra. On the way, just 200 meters prior to Fullanpur Railway Crossing near Gayatri Temple, Vipin Pandey, Vandesh Bind, Dinesh Bind, Nate @ Rudra (Revisionist), Abhi Bind, Ganesh Bind, Lalla and Kanchan Bind had picked up a raw with his son and one Mudhir (injured) and had caused serious injuries to them by knife. After getting this information from the persons at the place of occurrence and with the assistance of persons there, the injured Monu was taken to Sadar Hospital where he died and Mudhir (injured) was referred to BHU for treatment. In post-mortem report, the deceased Monu has sustained as many as eight injuries which include six stab and sharp wounds caused by the knife, which was the cause of his death besides two other injuries.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that co-accused Manish Bind @ Lalla has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.12.2020 passed in Crl. Revision No. 2136 of 2020, co-accused Kanchan Sonkar has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.12.2020 passed in Crl. Revision No.1266 of 2020 and co-accused Vipin Pandey has also been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.9.2020, copies of the orders have been produced which are taken on record, therefore, parity is claimed. Further, it is argued by him that the accused-revisionist was found to be 16 years, 06 months and 14 days old as per order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 25.5.2020, which is annexed at page-42 of the paper book, therefore, being a minor, he should be treated to be a juvenile and hence principle of law laid-down in section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act should be applicable here that in case he is released on bail he would come in association of the known criminal or that he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. This principle has not been followed by the court below and have dismissed his bail application. He has also drawn attention to the report of District Prohibition Officer which is annexed at page 8 to 12 of the supplementary affidavit, in which it is recorded that the revisionist had studied upto class VIII and his father was running a tea shop at Ghazipur Railway Station and upon an enquiry held, prima-facie there was no criminal record found against him or his family member and that he required supervision and protection for being reformed and it is mentioned in this report that some dispute had occurred amongst friends and the name of the revisionist had also appeared in the present case. Nothing else has come in his knowledge adverse to the revisionist. All these facts have been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court, hence the revisionist deserves to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the release of revisionist on bail by drawing attention to the statement of injured witness which is annexed at page-36 of the paper book, in which he has stated that in the light which was available at Hanuman Temple, he had identified the revisionist, co-accused Manish Bind, @ Lalla and co-accused Bandesh and one unknown person, who were having knife in their hands and were making assault with the same upon the deceased Monu while Vipin Kumar Pandey, Kanchan, Anand, Ganesh, Dinesh and 4-5 other persons had caught hold of him. He has also drawn attention to the injuries sustained by the injured Mudhir. He had also sustained as many as seven stab wounds. The injury memo is annexed with the counter affidavit. In view of this, it is argued by him that the revisionist has a direct role in making assault upon the deceased by which he had died. He falls in the category of accused between 16 to 18 years of age group and not below that, therefore, in case he is found guilty, he could be punished for any length of incarceration below life imprisonment or death penalty as per section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is not a case in which upon holding accused guilty, he would not be punished beyond three years detention in observation home.
Looking to the fact that there is a direct role of the accused-revisionist of causing injuries to the deceased by stabbing as the injured eye witness has stated to that effect, in case the accused-revisionist is released on bail, ends of justice would be defeated, therefore, this is not found to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid, this revision deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021
AU
