Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Ismail Thru. Mother ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 23 July, 2021
Bench: Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 31 Reserved
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 443 of 2020
Revisionist :- Mohammad Ismail Thru. Mother Rubeena
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anita Singh, Taufeeq Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist/juvenile Mohammad Ismail through his mother Rubeena, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the "Act of 2015") against the judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court NO. 8, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2019 as well as order dated 06.04.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Case Crime No. 252/2018, under Sections 364, 302, 201 Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C."), Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Revision are as follows:-
An F.I.R. No. 252 of 2018 was registered on the basis of the written complaint made by the complainant stating that on 03.10.2018 at about 11 A.M., her son aged about five years was playing in-front of the house. He was missing from there. She along with other villagers made a search for her son but could not know anything. During the course of investigation, the name of the revisionist surfaced and charge sheet was filed against him. He claimed juvenility and was so declared. He was found 15 years and 9 months old at the time of incident. He moved an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki, which was rejected vide order 06.04.2019. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the revisionist that too was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 30.09.2019. Being aggrieved of those orders, this revision has been preferred.
3. Heard Sri Taufeeq Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent. None turned up on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite of service of notice.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was minor at the time of incident. He is in detention since 06.10.2018. He was not named in the F.I.R. There is no eye witness of the crime. There is no criminal history of the revisionist and nothing adverse is there in the report of the District Probation Officer. The Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki did not apply its legal mind and rejected the bail application of the revisionist and the Appellate Court too without analyzing the facts of the matter properly, dismissed the appeal, as such, the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as judgment passed by the Appellate Court should be set aside.
5. Contrary to it, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the revision and submitted that a child of a tender age was killed by the revisionist, as such, he should not be released on bail.
6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute that the revisionist has been declared juvenile. His age was found 15 years and 9 months at the time of incident. He is in detention since 06.10.2018. The F.I.R. was lodged as a report of missing of the deceased as at that time, no clue was there, where the deceased was. No criminal history of the revisionist has been pointed out. There is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the report of the District Probation Officer.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just to set aside the order dated 06.04.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki as well as the judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Appellate Court.
9. The Revision is allowed.
10. The order passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki dated 06.04.2019 and judgment dated 30.09.2019 passed by Appellate Court are set-aside.
11. Let the revisionist/juvenile (Mohammad Ismail) be released on bail in Case Crime No. 252/2018, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki, and be given in custody of his mother on her furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki subject to following conditions :-
(i) That the mother of the juvenile shall furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and she will ensure that the juvenile do not repeat the offence.
(ii) The mother will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that she will encourage the juvenile to pursue his studies.
(iii) The revisionist Mohammad Ismail and his mother Rubeena will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and if during any calendar month, the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.
(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.
(v) The party shall file a computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021
Arun (Saroj Yadav, J.)
