Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 December, 2022
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2132 of 2022
Revisionist :- Juvenile X
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- D.K.Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/, Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2022 (Narendra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P and another) as well as order dated 17.2.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 476 of 2011 under sections 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandhshar, whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
According to prosecution version, accused-revisionist was arrested by police along with co-accused Jahid and Ashish on 10.5.2011 and from possession of accused-applicant, country made pistol of 315 bore and one live cartridge of 315 bore was recovered. On interrogation, revisionist and co-accused confessed their involvement in a case of robbery which occurred on 29.5.2011 in which a licensee pistol, Rs. 20,000/- a gold ring and two mobile phones looted by some miscreants, were recovered. On the basis of said stolen property and on the basis of recovery and confessional statement of accused persons, accused-revisionist was connected in present case under Section 394, 411 IPC.
From perusal of impugned judgment passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, it appears that accused was declared juvenile in conflict with law vide order dated 25.11.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in which his date of birth was recorded as 17 years zero month 29 days on the date of incident. He was enlarged on bail vide order dated 20.8.2011 by the orders of competent court but the revisionist absconded thereof and case remained pending before the court concerned. Accused-revisionist was further arrested in a case under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act and thereafter he was remanded in present case and revisionist is in jail custody since 18.2.2022 i.e. for more than ten months till date.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned court below have dismissed the bail application of the revisionist mainly on the ground that he had misused the liberty of bail and absconded after being enlarged on bail by the competent court. It is further submitted that accused-revisionist has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.4.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 2, Aligarh in the case under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, P.S. Delhi Gate, District Aligarh, wherein criminal history of six cases including present one was discussed in the judgment. Learned Gangster Court also placed reliance on Kuldeep (minor) Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020 (8) Allahabad, Crl.L.J., wherein it is held that in cases related to juvenile in conflict of law, gravity and seriousness of the offence is not a de-terminated factor. It is further submitted that learned courts below have not paid heed to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case related to juvenile and dismissed bail application of the revisionist in superficial manner.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed bail application and submitted that revisionist is person of criminal antecedent. He was involved in gangster act and in case of release on bail, he may repeat the offence.
Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and allegations and the fact that criminal history of revisionist has already been discussed by Special Judge, Gangster Act in a case of Gangster Act, wherein revisionist was enlarged on bail and he was also enlarged on bail in present case on merits vide order dated 20.8.2011, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail on a fresh bail bonds as he is in jail custody presently since 8.2.2022.
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 order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 17.2.2022 as well as order dated 21.1.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Juvenile 'X' be released on bail through his father Y furnishing a personal bond of Rs. one lac and two heavy 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 :- 23.12.2022
A.P. Pandey
