Allahabad High Court
Ankit Alias Chhote Lalla vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2169 of 2020
Revisionist :- Ankit Alias Chhote Lalla
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Counter affidavit has been filed and the same is taken on record.
Notice was sent to the opposite party no. 2 but the report of office dated 23.2.2021 based on the report of the C.J.M., Shahjahanpur dated 23.2.2021, says that there is no person found living by that name on the given address and in view of that the said notice could not be served.
Learned A.G.A. says that he has complete record of the case with him and he is ready to argue this case, hence this case is being heard though the opposite party no. 2 could not be served despite best efforts.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge, (POCSO Act) Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2020 (Ankit alias Chhote Lalla Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 29.9.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur in Case Crime No. 714 of 2019 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Arjun, his brother Arun (deceased) and a cousin had gone to see OCF Ramlila and when they were returning from there, at about 11:50 PM, when they reached near main post office, some quarrel had happened which was mediated by the persons there. Thereafter the informant and his brother were heading towards his house and when they reached near gate of RPF, five to seven persons encircled them and out of them, one of the boys had taken out his knife and stabbed his brother Arun. The other accused had assaulted upon the informant by butt of the pistol and also he had knife with him which was also used in assault upon him and after the commotion was heard by other persons, they fled from there. His brother was taken to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. In post-mortem report, deceased is found to have sustained six injuries which were the cause of his death.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is 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 revisionist is innocent. His name has been taken by co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raj Kamal who is the main assailant of this case. After his arrest, he has revealed the name of the revisionist also as being involved in giving effect to this occurrence by throwing stones upon the complainant side. As regards use of knife, the same was used by Raj Kumar @ Raj Kamal in assaulting the deceased and the said accused had already been allowed bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13889 of 2020 vide order dated 15.6.2020 which is annexed at page 66-A to 68 of the affidavit. The other co-accused Nikhil has also been allowed bail vide order dated 24.9.2020 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20391 of 2020. Besides these facts, revisionist is a minor as he had been adjudged to be 17 years and 4 months old in the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 21.7.2019, hence a juvenile. 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 not expose him to any moral, physical and psychological danger/threat or that ends of justice would not be defeated by his release.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the release of revisionist on bail.
I find that there is no direct evidence in this case. Moreover in district probation officer's report, nothing adverse has been recorded in the said report against the accused-revisionist which would lead this court to the 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.
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 29.9.2020 as well as order dated 20.10.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Ankit Alias Chhote Lalla (Minor) be released on bail through his father Ramnaresh 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 he 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 :- 15.3.2021
A.P. Pandey
