Allahabad High Court
Vineet (Juvenile) Thru. His ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 278 of 2022
Revisionist :- Vineet (Juvenile) Thru. His Father Rajendra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pal, counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Zeba Islam Siddiqui, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Hardoi, in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2021 (Vineet Vs. State of U.P.) rejecting the appeal, as well as the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi, in Bail Application of the revisionist bearing Bail Application No. 59 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Vineet), arising out of Case Crime No. 459 of 2020, under Sections 376AB, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Madhauganj, District Hardoi.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the medical report does not indicate any external injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is in home protection center since 26.11.2020 and has undergone the period of custody for more than one year six months. It has further been argued that the maximum punishment which can be provided to a juvenile, is up to three years and thus the revisionist has undergone substantial period of custody, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
In support of his submission, counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in Gorelal Pasi (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2020, decided on 23.09.2020] to contend that in the said case it was pleaded that the revisionist had undergone half of the sentence as provided in the Act and was granted bail. While deciding the case of Gorelal Pasi (Juvenile) (supra), various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court were relied upon. One of the judgments relied upon is Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the appellant in that case had already served a substantial period of the sentence, therefore, the Supreme Court directed the Sessions Court concerned to grant bail the appellant. Another judgment which was relied upon was Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that appellants in that case had already undergone substantial period of imprisonment (3 years and 3 months) and there was no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal, therefore, the appellant were directed to be released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. While deciding the case of Gorelal Pasi (Juvenile) (supra), reliance was also placed on a judgment in the case of Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and Others, [2018 (7) ADJ 864]. Similarly, the judgment in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) was also relied upon.
Para-2 of Kamal (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:
"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not point out anything material to substantiate their contention.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Hardoi, in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2021 (Vineet Vs. State of U.P.) rejecting the appeal, as well as the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi, in Bail Application of the revisionist bearing Bail Application No. 59 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Vineet), arising out of Case Crime No. 459 of 2020, under Sections 376AB, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Madhauganj, District Hardoi, are set aside.
The revisionist, namely, Vineet is directed to be put in the custody of his father 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 :- 30.5.2022
Arun K. Singh
