Allahabad High Court
Sahil Khan(Minor) 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. - 189 of 2021
Revisionist :- Sahil Khan(Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vindeshwari Prasad,Ramesh Chand,Vindeshwari Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
As per office report dated 25.02.2021, service upon opposite party no. 2 could not be effected because as per office report which is based on the report of C.J.M., Ghaziabad, the opposite party no. 2 is not found residing at the given address, therefore, this Court has left with no option but to proceed with the case with the aid of the learned A.G.A. who has complete record relating to this case.
Heard Sri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
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 08.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2020 (Shahil Khan Vs. State of U.P.) as well as against the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Court, Ghaziabad in Case Crime No. 98 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 120B of I.P.C., Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad whereby the bail of the accused-revisionist has been rejected.
As per FIR, which was lodged by Smt. Shama (sister of the deceased), it has been stated that on 08.02.2020, at about 12:45 PM, the informant's brother Salim was stated to have been surrounded by the co-accused Shafik along with other co-accused named in the F.I.R. because the deceased was asking lent money from them and the deceased was threatened by them that he was asking for money again and again so now he would be done to death and thereafter the co-accused Shafik had made fire upon the deceased four-five times due to which he had died on the spot. In post mortem report, the deceased was found to have suffered as many as six fire arm injuries, which were the cause of death.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the name of the revisionist has come into picture in the statement of witness Jawed whose statement was recorded after one month of the occurrence and he has simply added the name of the accused revisionist in the array of the accused who were involved in surrounding the deceased. It is further argued that no recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the revisionist. Moreover, the revisionist is found to be 15 years 7 months and 7 days old, hence he was juvenile on the date of occurrence as is evident from the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 18.08.2020. 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 or that he would not be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or the ends of justice would not be defeated. He has also drawn attention to the report of District Probation Officer, Ghaziabad, which is annexed at page nos. 37 to 47 of the paper book, in which it is mentioned that the revisionist has no previous criminal record. 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 released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the release of revisionist.
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 known criminal or that it should not expose him to any moral, physical and psychological threat or that ends of justice should not be defeated by his release. No evidence has been produced before the forums 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 08.09.2020 as well as order dated 08.12.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Sahil Khan(Minor) be released on bail during trial on his father Shahid Khan furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 :- 15.3.2021
VPS
