Akshay Pratap Singh Thru. His ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10709 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 42 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Akshay Pratap Singh Thru. His Father Mr. Suraj Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Gupta,Sarvesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Raebareli dismissing Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2021 (Akshay Pratap Singh Vs. State), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli dated 01.12.2021 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.114 of 202, arising out of Case Crime No.268 of 2021, under Section 364-A IPC, Police Station Mohanganj, District Raebareli.

Heard Sri Dharmendra Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submission is that the revisionist is neither named in the FIR nor his name came into light in the statement of the victim. The revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. As per high-school certificate the date of birth of the juvenile is 15.12.2004, according to which, the juvenile is aged about 16 years, 7 months and 28 days on the date of incident. The revisionist is a student of class-XII. It is further submitted that there is criminal history of one case against the revisionist, which was lodged on the date of the present incident under Section 307 IPC and in the said case he has been released on bail except that case, he has no criminal history. The revisionist is in jail since 13.08.2021 in connection with the present crime and has completed more than one year of the sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly. Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings. There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist. There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for. The bail application was rejected vide order dated 01.12.202, being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2021. Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:

(i) That the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

(ii) That the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

(iii) That the law has been laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court that the seriousness of the offence is no ground to reject the bail of the juvenile and only two contingencies have been provided to be considered at the time of consideration of the bail application and those are if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

(iv) That the father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.

(v) That the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.

(vi) That both the courts below have committed gross illegality by rejecting the revisionist's bail prayer after declaring him juvenile.

(vii) That both the courts below have given wrong findings without any material available on record.

(viii) That there was no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family or background of the revisionist.

(ix) That there is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.

(x) That the impugned orders passed by the courts below are totally arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

(xi) That the findings given by the courts below are based on conjectures and surmises.

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the revisionist that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that the revisionist has by now done more than one year of institutional incarceration. The maximum period for which a juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever form of detention, is three years, going by the provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the revisionist's case with the submission that the release of the revisionist on bail would bring him into association of some known criminals, besides, exposing him to moral, physical and psychological danger. It is submitted that his release would defeat the ends of justice, considering that he is involved in a heinous offence.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned orders. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2021 (Akshay Pratap Singh Vs. State) and the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in Case No.114 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.268 of 2021, under Section 364-A IPC, Police Station Mohanganj District Amethi, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.

Let the revisionist, Akshay Pratap Singh through his natural guardian/ father Suraj Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No.268 of 2021, under Sections 364-A IPC, Police Station Mohanganj District Amethi upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian/ father, Suraj Singh 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 father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his father, Suraj Singh will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of September, 2022 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, Raebareli 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 expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

.

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)

Order Date :- 22.8.2022

Virendra