Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2120 of 2021
Revisionist :- Pushpendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anuj Bajpai
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 08.07.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Juvenile Bail Appeal No. 19 of 2021 (C.N.R. No. U.P.S.H. 010017782021 (Pushpendra vs. State) whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and for quashing the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur whereby the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) has been rejected in case crime No. 429 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that this is case of sudden provocation, revisionist has no motive to commit the murder of deceased Raghubar Dayal. The revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. It is further contended that there are general allegations against the revisionist and no specific allegation has been assigned to him. It is further contended that from the possession of the revisionist no weapon has been recovered and during investigation, the investigating officer exonerated the name of the co-accused Munish and Sonu and submitted charge-sheet against the revisionist and co-accused. The revisionist has no criminal history to his credit. The revisionist is innocent and has not committed any offence, he has been falsely implicated in the present case with the enimity of village party-bandi. It is further submitted that co-accused, Suresh has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.02.2021 passed in Criminal Mis. Bail Application No. 8934 of 2021.
It is further submitted that revisionist was declared as juvenile in conflict of law on 11.02.2021 but even that both the court below were failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile; only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and it has been consistent view of various courts; the Board or the lower appellate court has not given any reason or material on record which shows that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger, that his release would defeat the ends of justice; there is no criminal history of the applicant and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The revisionist is in jail since 19.10.2020.
It is next contended that revisionist has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed without there being any substance. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was juvenile i.e. 17 years, 09 months on the date of incident i.e. on 12.10.2020. It is further argued that once the person has already been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail.
It is next argued on behalf of revisionist that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act for rejection of bail application. He further submits that the orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any concrete reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically. He further submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer discloses that the revisionist has no criminal tendency nor has any criminal history on record and the said fact has not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.
It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed, impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist, Pushpendra be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nigohi, District- Shahjahanpur, on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to following conditions:-
(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 28.4.2022/Aditya
