Allahabad High Court
Nikhil vs State Of U.P. on 29 January, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2182 of 2020
Revisionist :- Nikhil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Dubey,Birendra Singh Khokher
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.
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 14.10.2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) (Exclusive Court), Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2020 (Nikhil vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 14.09.2020 (State vs. Nikhil) passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2020 under section 302 IPC, Police Station Binauli, District Baghpat whereby the bail of the accused-revisionist has been rejected.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by Satvir Singh, who is grant-father of the accused-applicant, the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 10/11.04.2020, his younger son Subodh @ Kala (deceased) was sleeping in the Baithak of the house, at about 1.00 a.m. in the night, he heard sound of fire, whereafter he went to the said Baithak and he saw that the accused-applicant was having a 315 bore country made pistol in his hand and in front of him, he made fire upon the deceased and when he tried to catch hold of him, he fled from there. This occurrence was also seen by his elder son Manoj and his wife Sanju and his son Ankur. In post-mortem report, the deceased is found to have sustained as many as four gun shot wound besides that blush contuish was found on his person, which were cause of the death.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the deceased was history sheeter and the details of the criminal history of t he deceased have been annexed at page-16 of the supplementary affidavit which shows that he was having 13 criminal cases which included serious cases under sections 302 and 395 IPC as well. It is further argued that somebody had killed him and the revisionist has been falsely implicated. He has drawn attention to the application given by the informant himself on 21.4.2020 before Superintendent of Police, Baghpat wherein he has clearly stated that his son was history sheeter and in the year 2016, his son (deceased) had killed Bhupendra of village Sirsali regarding which, case crime no. 371 of 2016 under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B IPC was registered at P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat. The said FIR was lodged by Praveen and the statements of Urmila and Praveen in that case were being recorded, who have been threatened by the deceased. Regarding the said threat having been given, another case was also got registered against the deceased under section 379 of 2017 under section 506 IPC. Thereafter, the said Praveen got his son (deceased) murdered and he in collusion with police had got him (informant) lifted and a false FIR has been got lodged against his grandson. Thereafter, an application of similar contents was also given by the informant before DIG, Meerut on 27.4.2020, which is annexed at page-30 of the supplementary affidavit. It is further argued that the court below had rejected the bail of the revisionist erroneously only because of the case being of serious nature and on the basis of the statement of the informant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has supported the prosecution version although the said application was not taken into consideration in which informant had resiled from the prosecution version. Moreover, it is also argued that the revisionist was found to be juvenile below 16 years of age, which is evident from the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 07.09.2020 which is annexed at pages 36 to 40 of the paper book. therefore, it is argued that the principles of bail as provided under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act have not been taken into consideration which say that 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 be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. In District Probation Officer report, nothing adverse has come against the accused-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 counsel for opposite party no. 2 has admitted about the said application having been moved by the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, it is apparent that the witness/informant himself has not supported the prosecution version which is admitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the release of revisionist on bail but has not controverted the aforesaid fact.
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 hardened 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 courts below which could lead them to draw those conclusions. Both the courts 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 below 16 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 14.10.2019 as well as order dated 14.9.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Nikhil (Minor) be released on bail during trial on his father Manoj furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- 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 :- 29.1.2021
AU
