Allahabad High Court
Aditya Yadav Minor Thru. Mother ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 837 of 2019
Revisionist :- Aditya Yadav Minor Thru. Mother Yashoda Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Archana Rawat
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Although notices were served on the opposite party No. 2, none has appeared on her behalf. Counsel for the revisionist is also not present.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record with his assistance.
The present revision has been preferred against the orders, being judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-8/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2019 (Aditya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another) affirming the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow dated 02.04.2019 by which the Board denied to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.
The bail was granted to the revisionist on 14.10.2019 in the following terms:
"The revisionist has been declared juvenile vide order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board In Misc. Case No.56 of 2019, arising our of Case Crime No.29 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.
The revisionist's bail application was rejected by the Board vide order dated 2.4.2019. The revisionist is a Class-XII student and he has been in jail since 6.2.2019.
In the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she said that she lived with the revisionist for fifteen days in a hotel in Varanasi and, thereafter, she went to Delhi by public transport and she lived with him in Delhi.
Considering the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court finds that it is a fit case where the accused-revisionist be enlarged on bail.
Let revisionist, Aditya Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The revisionist shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law."
The record reveals that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she lived with the revisionist for fifteen days in a hotel at Varanasi and thereafter she went to Delhi by public transport and lived with the revisionist in Delhi. The applicant has already been declared juvenile. It is also noted that more than three years have passed and there is nothing adverse on record.
Learned A.G.A. does not rebut the aforesaid facts
In view of the aforesaid, the criminal revision is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-8/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2019 (Aditya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another) affirming the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow dated 02.04.2019 by which the Board denied to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, are set aside. The bail granted to the revisionist on 14.10.2019 stands affirmed.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022
Arun K. Singh
