Allahabad High Court
Anuj Kumar @ Banna vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 271 of 2022
Revisionist :- Anuj Kumar @ Banna
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amrendra Kumar,Durgesh Kumar Asthana,Narendra Gupta,Neeraj Kumar Baghel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been preferred against the orders, being judgment and order dated 03.11.2018 passed by the Special Judge -III POCSO Act/8th Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2018 (Anuj Kumar @ Banna Vs. State of U.P. and Another) affirming the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur dated 17.01.2018 by which the Board denied to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 376, 511 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Manpur, District Sitapur.
Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. was lodged on 30.06.2017. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that on the basis of the statement of Rampal and Sudarshan, the last seen evidence has been recorded on 02.07.2017 and on the same day the complainant filed application before the police regarding the incident. It has been further submitted by the counsel for the revisionist that though it is a case of last seen but the evidence is not corroborative and the chain is missing. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the revisionist has been declared juvenile and his age is about 16 years 4 months and 25 days and the revisionist is in jail since 03.07.2017. He has further submitted that the revisionist has no previous criminal antecedents and the revisionist has already served under custody for more than five years.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not point out anything material to substantiate his contention and rebut the submissions advanced by the counsel for the revisionist.
In view of the aforesaid, the criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 03.11.2018 passed by the Special Judge -III POCSO Act/8th Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2018 (Anuj Kumar @ Banna Vs. State of U.P. and Another) affirming the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur dated 17.01.2018 by which the Board denied to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 376, 511 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Manpur, District Sitapur, are set aside.
The revisionist, namely, Anuj Kumar @ Banna is directed to be put in the custody of his mother and be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that the parent/guardian of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
Arun K. Singh
