Allahabad High Court
Suraj Patel @ Rajan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 23 of 2021
Revisionist :- Suraj Patel @ Rajan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Babu Lal Ram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh and Inspector Singh on behalf of the revisionist and the same is taken on record.
Service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient but none has appeared.
Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, 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 31.10.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2020 as well as order dated 28.9.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 254 of 2020 under sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Chhotey Lal, some unknown persons had committed murder of his real brother Jay Hind Patel @ Golai in the intervening night of 10/11.7.2020 by splitting his throat. In post-mortem report of the deceased, three injuries are found to have been sustained by the deceased and the cause of death was found to be coma due to head injury.
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 that revisionist is son of the deceased. There is no evidence collected by the investigating officer against him except the confessional statement of the accused himself in which he has stated that his father was a drunkard and was not looking after him well, because of being fed up with him in the night of 10/11.7.2020, he had knocked at the door where his father was staying and when he came out of the house, he assaulted upon him with a leg/paun of the cot by which he fell down and thereafter his companions Sonu Chauhan and Rahul Gupta had caught hold of him and he himself made assault upon the deceased by a chapad. Recovery of chapad has been done at the joint pointing out of the accused applicant and other co-accused from the plot of Amarnath. It is further argued that the said chapad was sent to FSL for being tested but till date no report has been received regarding human blood having been found upon it. As regards the other evidence, statement of Chhotey Lal, who is informant of this case, is shown in which he has stated that three children of the deceased used to remain annoyed with the deceased because of his conduct as he was debauch type and did not care of children but he has stated that some unknown persons had killed him in the intervening night of 10/11.07.2020. In view of this, it is argued that no evidence has come against the applicant of direct nature except the confessional statement. There is no independent eye-witness of the recovery. It is further argued that age of the revisionist is found to be 17 years 10 months and 12 days on the date of occurrence by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 22.10.2020. 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. In D.P.O. report, nothing adverse has been recorded. He has no criminal history.
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 28.9.2020 as well as order dated 31.10.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Suraj Patel @ Rajan be released on bail through his natural guardian (maternal aunty/mausi) Smt. Jay Devi 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 she 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 :- 16.3.2021
A.P. Pandey
