Allahabad High Court
Amarjeet vs State Of U.P. And And Another on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1245 of 2020
Revisionist :- Amarjeet
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Laljeet
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. None is present from the side of the opposite party no. 2.
Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.1.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2019 (Amarjeet (minor) Vs. State of U.P.) (CNR-UPAZ0210074082019 as well as order dated 5.10.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 71 of 2018 under sections 302, 201, 326A IPC, Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Gram Pradhan namely Hemraj, who is opposite party no. 2 in this case, after receiving information about the dead body of the deceased lying in field, he had gone there and it appeared to him that a girl was burnt by throwing acid upon her after committing murder. In post-mortem report, deceased is found to have sustained one contusion, superficial to deep burn injury on the neck and face of the front side as well as animal bite. Cause of death was recorded as ante-mortem 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 there is no evidence gathered by the investigating officer against the accused-revisionist except the statement of co-accused Diwakar who is brother of the accused-revisionist, who in his confessional statement made before police has stated that he himself had killed his sister and after killing her with the aid of the revisionist, her dead body was burnt by throwing acid upon her. It is further argued that there is no evidentiary value of the confessional statement of co-accused against the accused-revisionist. He has no criminal history. No incriminating article has been recovered from him. It is further argued that age of the revisionist is found to be 15 years 5 months and 24 days on the date of occurrence by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 6.07.2019 and therefore he was below 16 years of age and hence a juvenile. 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. He has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail but could not controvert the aforesaid fact.
I find that there is only confessional statement and 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 belief 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 5.10.2019 as well as order dated 21.1.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Amarjeet be released on bail through his father Phoolchand 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 he 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 :- 22.3.2021
A.P. Pandey
