Allahabad High Court
Man Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 431 of 2021
Revisionist :- Man Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikash Pathak,Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is found sufficient but none has appeared from the side of opposite party no. 2.
Heard Sri Vikash Pathak, 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 20.01.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2020 being CNR UPMT) 01009825/2020 as well as against the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 44 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 34 & 504 of IPC, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, whereby the bail of the accused-revisionist has been rejected.
As per FIR, lodged by the opposite party no. 2/informant, it has been stated that on the festival of Holi in front of his house, the co-accused Ved Prakash, Prahlad and Shivram were making noise and hurling abuses which was resisted by his brother Fateh Singh and then the other co-accused (Sr. No. 4 to 10 in the F.I.R.) which included the accused applicant came there armed with illegal weapon and in prosecution of their common object to eliminate the deceased, they all started indiscriminate firing upon the complainant side in which the informant's mother, his father and his brother Ashok have received injuries and his brother Fateh Singh had died and this occurrence has taken place at the exhortation of the ladies of the house of the accused side who had also come there armed with danda. In post mortem report, only one entry and exit wound is found to have been sustained by the deceased.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the role has been assigned to the co-accused Ved Prakash as per the statement of injured witness Durga. He has drawn attention towards the injury memos of other injured persons wherein Atri has received lacerated wound caused by hard and blunt weapon; injured Durga has received only abrasion caused by hard and blunt weapon; injured Ashok received lacerated wound and x-ray was conducted and report was NAD, therefore, the deceased seems to be the only person who had received fire arm injury which has been assigned to the co-accused Ved Prakash. It is further argued that no specific role has been assigned to the accused revisionist. Moreover, the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura has determined the age of the revisionist to be 17 years 7 months and 7 days vide order dated 26.11.2020, hence he was juvenile. 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, Mathura which is annexed at page nos. 118 to 120 of the paper book in which it is mentioned that the revisionist has no previous criminal record. 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 allowed on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the release of revisionist on bail.
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 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 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 14.12.2020 as well as order dated 20.01.2021 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Man Singh (Minor) be released on bail during trial on his father Ganpat 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 :- 18.3.2021
VPS
