Allahabad High Court
Kallu @ Hani @ Hanish (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 429 of 2020
Revisionist :- Kallu @ Hani @ Hanish (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ishan Deo Giri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Priyanka Devi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ishan Deo Giri, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.
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 06.01.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad arising out of Case Crime No. 708 of 2019, under section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2019 (Kallu @ Haanish (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P. filed by the revisionist has been rejected.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by Smt. Pooja, the prosecution case is that on 2.5.2019 at about 1.00 p.m. when her husband was sleeping in the house, the accused who was her neighbour, came there along with his mother and upon entering in the house, assaulted with knife upon her husband and her husband ran out of the house crying loudly but the accused did not stop and was making assault continuously by the knife, thereafter both the accused-applicant and his mother fled from the scene of occurrence. The deceased died on the way while he was being taken to the hospital. The post-mortem report indicates that the deceased had sustained as many as 18 incised wounds upon his body which were the cause of death.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the accused is a juvenile and the deceased was about 40 years of age, therefore, a juvenile cannot be imagined to have assaulted a person of 40 years. Further, it is argued by him that circumstances show that there was love relationship between the daughter of the deceased and the revisionist and therefore on the place of occurrence some situation might have happened and out of anger the accused revisionist might have assaulted upon the deceased. Further, it is argued by him that the accused-revisionist was found to be 17 years, 07 months and 24 days old as per order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 10.10.2019, which is annexed at page-29 of the paper book, therefore, being a minor, he should be treated to be a juvenile and hence principle of law laid-down in section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act should be applicable which provides that in case the accused is released on bail he would not come in association of the known criminal or that he would not be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or that the ends of justice would not be defeated. This principle has not been followed by the court below and had wrongly dismissed his bail application only treating the offence to be of serious nature. He has also drawn attention to the report of District Prohibition Officer, which has been produced by the learned counsel for the revisionist which is taken on record, in which nothing adverse has come against the revisionist. The above principle of law has been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court, hence impugned order deserves to be set aside and the revisionist deserves to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the release of revisionist on bail and have drawn attention to the fact that post-mortem report corroborates the mode of assault as has been mentioned in the FIR. The deceased had been brutally murdered by the accused-revisionist by assaulting him and causing as many as 18 injuries by knife which caused his death, therefore, bail should be rejected.
Looking to the fact that there is a direct role of the accused-revisionist in causing injuries to the deceased by stabbing, in case the accused-revisionist is released on bail, ends of justice would be defeated, therefore, this is not found to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid, this revision deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 22.3.2021
AU
