Allahabad High Court
Juvenile(X) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1815 of 2022
Revisionist :- Juvenile(X)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Chitranshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Atul Tej Kulshrestha holding brief of Sri Ashish Chitranshi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None appears for the respondent no. 2-the informant.
3. This criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly and the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the the Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly affirming the aforesaid order of the Juvenile Justice Board in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2021 under Sections 302, 323 IPC, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly.
4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that in this case, the revisionist is minor daughter of the lone accused 'Y', initially named in the FIR. The FIR, in this case, was lodged with simple allegation of thrashing of deceased by 'lathi-danda'. However, seven days after his death on 11.05.2021, an application naming the juvenile and her mother was given with a different version of the incident alleging that because of old enmity between two sides, the juvenile and her parents ambushed his father-Sonpal with 'lathi-danda' and absconded after the incident. Attention has been drawn to the statement given by the eye-witnesses-Ramkali, wife of deceased and Satyapal, in which, only the lone accused initially named in the FIR, has been alleged to have a role in the incident and name of the rest of the two accused persons including the present revisionist was not even mentioned. As per the postmortem report, the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage caused by simple injuries on his person. None of the injuries were found grievous in nature. It is also contended that mother of the juvenile-Ram Pyari has been granted bail by the court below. The case of the present revisionist is one of the parity with the co-accused who has been granted bail and that the juvenile is in detention since 19.05.2021.
5. I perused the impugned orders. It appears that the Juvenile Justice Board decided to decline bail to the juvenile on the sole basis of social investigation report of District Probation Officer. So far as the order of the appellate Court is concerned, it appears that without giving its own assessment of things before it, the appellate Court simply concurred with a finding given by the Juvenile Justice Board.
6. I perused the papers on record. These facts are not disputed that initially the revisionist and her mother were not named, as a culprit, in the FIR, however, almost a week thereafter, an application, naming the juvenile and her mother, was given by the son of the deceased, in which, a different version of the incident was also given. It is noticed that the other co-accused, who has been assigned similar role, has been granted bail by the court below on 17.09.2021 but her minor daughter, being a juvenile, is still detained in a child care institution since 19.05.2021 i.e., for more than one year.
7. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the the Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly and order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, are hereby set aside.
8. Let the revisionist, minor "X', daughter of 'Y' through her guardian/real brother Anil Kumar R/o Village Laungpur, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly be released on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2021 under Sections 302, 323 IPC, Police Station-Faridpur, District-Bareilly upon her brother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the brother 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 brother will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;
(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court;
Order Date :- 30.9.2022/Vik/-
