Allahabad High Court
Rohit (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1428 of 2020
Revisionist :- Rohit (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwani Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ashwani Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. 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 26.02.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2019 (State Vs. Rohit) arising out of Case Crime NO. 152 of 2019 under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur, whereby dismissing the appeal under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and confirming the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by Juve3nile Justice Board in Criminal Misc. Bail Application.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by Satya Prakash Dhar Dubey, the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 29/30.4.2019 he along with his younger nephew Ratandweep Dhar Dubey was sleeping at the roof and his other nephew Navneet Dhar Dubey (deceased) was sleeping with door open. At about 12.00 p.m. in the night all of a sudden a cry was heard of the deceased Navneet Dhar Dubey, hearing which the informant and his younger nephew Ratandweep Dhar Dubey had flashed the torch and saw that the applicant Rohit, co-accused Madhuri Devi and two other unknown person having covered their faces, were pressing the neck of the deceased and the informant and his younger nephew Ratandweep Dhar Dubey, when both of them came out and had woken up the ladies in the house, by that time the deceased had been taken away by the accused persons and his dead body was hanged with aid of bed sheet in order to show it to be a suicide. Earlier also, the deceased had some altercation with the accused-applicant because of this reason, this occurrence has been given effect to. In post-mortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera has been preserved.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is no concrete evidence against the accused-revisionist collected by the Investigating Officer. In the statement of the informant which is annexed at page-71 of the paper book, he has stated that he and his nephew Ratandweep Dhar Dubey had reached the place where the occurrence took place and they could not catch hold of the accused. His nephew Ratandweep Dhar Dubey had caught hold of one accused, out of the four accused and after having seen his brother killed, he fainted and when he regained conscious, the accused had fled away from there. It is further argued that the applicant was found to be 16 years, 09 months and 27 days old by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur vide order dated 5.12.2019, therefore, he was a juvenile falling in the age group between 16 to 18 years. 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 release 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, Gorakhpur dated 19.12.2019 which is annexed at page 10-13 of the rejoinder affidavit in which nothing adverse has been mentioned by the District Probation Officer 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 A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the release of revisionist on bail and it is argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that there was eye witness account in this case as the informant and his nephew had seen the occurrence and the revisionist's involvement cannot be ruled out.
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 and or 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 forums 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 between 16 to 18 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 19.12.2019 as well as order dated 26.02.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Rohit (Minor) be released on bail during trial on his father Ganga Sagar 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 known 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 :- 16.3.2021
AU
