Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Alias Ajay Pal (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1570 of 2020
Revisionist :- Abhishek Alias Ajay Pal (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravi Sahu
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Bhagat,Ram Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandan Bhagat, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2020 as well as order dated 6.8.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No.723 of 2019 under sections 302, 201, 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Dehat, whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
As per F.I.R., the prosecution case is that Narendra Kumar, who is father of the deceased Sakshi, his daughter was studying in Maharshi Dayanand Babbu Lal Inter-college and was living on rent in the house of Rangilal with his brother. On 12.8.2019 in the evening, the accused-revisionist had hanged her to death with the aid of stole and the legs of the deceased were touching the floor. There was no sufficient space for hanging. A few days ago, co-accused Rajat Gupta had molested the deceased and his younger brother had given statement on his own. when accused-revisionist after having killed the deceased was coming out of the room, the revisionist's father and deceased's younger brother had seen him and then the accused was foulding his hands. Revisionist's father had slapped him two to four times. In post-mortem report, deceased is found to have sustained as many as six abrasions and ligature mark and cause of death is recorded as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem smothering.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist is innocent. There is no eye-witness of this occurrence. Statement of Sumit who is said to be eye-witness has been annexed in which he has simply stated to have seen the accused revisionist coming out of the room and has not seen actually killing the deceased. It is stated by him in the first statement that when he heard some noise in the night inside the room where the deceased was studying, he woke up and went there to see inside the room and found that Ajay Pal (revisionist) was there, he closed the door from outside and had woken up the accused's father Rangilal and when he opened the door, he slapped the revisionist 2-4 times and then revisionist fled from there. This witness had also chased him but he could not be caught. When he returned inside the room, he found that his sister was hanging, thereafter she was brought down. Thereafter second time, his statement was recorded in which he has further added that he had woken up in the night at about 12:30 am after hearing the noise from the room where deceased was studying and when he peeped inside the room from window, he saw that revisionist was inside the room. He closed the door from outside and went to the roof where the father of the revisionist was sleeping, who was woken up and thereafter room of her sister was opened and revisionist tried to flee from there, who was snubbed by his father and thereafter his sister also came down from the roof weeping. There is further statement made by him which is not being mentioned here. In the second statement, there is departure from the earlier made statement, therefore, it appears that his version may not be taken to be believable. It is further argued by the revisionist that age of the revisionist was found to be 16 years three months and twenty seven days in the order dated 6.8.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, hence he was a minor. For considering the bail of juvenile, as per settled law, the gravity of offence is not to be seen. Only three criteria laid down under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act ought to be taken into consideration which are that, if accused-revisionist is released on bail there is no likelihood of his coming in association with any known criminal or that his release would expose him to any moral, physical and psychological danger/threat or that ends of justice would not be defeated by his release. It is further argued that both the forums i.e. Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court have not taken into consideration the law which is provided for dealing with the bail application of the revisionist and rejected the bail of the revisionist erroneously only on the ground of seriousness of the offence. It is further argued that despite nothing being there against the revisionist on record, having no criminal antecedents, even then Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court have dismissed the bail of the revisionist.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of bail.
I find that there is only circumstantial evidence against the revisionist and no direct evidence in this case. Moreover in District Probation Officer's report which is annexed at page 72 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that revisionist was lying in detention for about eight months. He has passed High-school with good division and nothing adverse has been recorded therein against the accused-revisionist which would lead this court to believe that in case he is released on bail, he would come in association with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Looking to the fact that accused is juvenile though falling in the category between 16 to 18 years but evidence which has come on record against him does not indicate that there was direct evidence against him and it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore this Court finds that this is a fit case to release the accused-revisionist on bail.
In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 6.8.2020 as well as order dated 25.8.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Abhishek Alias Ajay Pal (Minor) be released on bail through her mother Smt. Saryu Devi furnishing a personal bond of Rs. one lac and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board on furnishing an undertaking that she shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and shall take care of his education and well being 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 :- 20.1.2021
A.P. Pandey
