Allahabad High Court
Piyush Bind (Minor) vs State Of Up And Anothers on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1681 of 2020
Revisionist :- Piyush Bind (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anothers
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar,Kalp Dev Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist 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 21.08.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge,(Newly POCSO Court No. 2), Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2020 (Piyush Bind Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as against the order dated 16.06.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in Case No. 20 of 2020 under section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur whereby the bail of the accused-revisionist has been rejected.
As per FIR, the prosecution case is that the two co-accused named in the FIR namely Khulli Bind and Suraj Yadav had opened fire upon the grandfather and father of the informant namely Viajy and Pruduman. Both of them had received two fire arm wounds as per post-mortem reports.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the name of the revisionist has come in the confessional statement of co-accused- namely Kanhaiya @ Khulli Bind, who has stated that he had opened fire upon both the deceased by his pistol and had fled by motorcycle with the revisionist. It is argued that there is no direct role assigned to the revisionist. Moreover, the revisionist is found to be less than 15 years of age, hence he was juvenile on the date of occurrence as is evident from the order of the appellate court dated 21.8.2020. 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 released is not likely to bring him in association with some known criminal and that he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger and the ends of justice would be defeated. He has also drawn attention to the report of District Probation Officer, Ghazipur which is annexed at page 10-13 of the supplementary affidavit in which it is mentioned that the revisionist had passed upto class IX and that he has no previous criminal record. His social and economical condition seems to be normal and that he needs care for his reformation and also it is stated that after enquiry being made from the neighbour, it came to light that he had gone at the call of his friend where some dispute had occurred and his name had come in commission of this offence. It is argued that 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 and has argued that the revisionist's involvement cannot be ruled out as he was the person who was accompanying with the two assailants and has been assigned the role of driving the motorcycle which was used in the commission of offence.
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 that 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 15 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 16.06.2020 as well as order dated 21.08.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Piyush Bind (Minor) be released on bail during trial on his father Divan Bind 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 :- 4.1.2021
AU
