Allahabad High Court
X (Juvenile ) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4103 of 2022
Revisionist :- X (Juvenile )
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kulashvar Sharma,Mrigank Shekhar Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-revisionist, Mrigand Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Ghan Shyam Kesharwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015) by the accused-revisionist impugning the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO ACT) in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2022 which was filed on behalf of the accused-revisionist against the order dated 17th August, 2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Banda arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2022 under Section 307 Police Station Baberu, District Band in which the Juvenile Justice Board, Banda has rejected the bail application of the accused-revisionist.
As per the prosecution case on 4th June, 2022 at around 10 p.m. the victim Deepak Singh alias Chintu Singh was going to village Vinot with her maternal grand-father. At that time the accused Bux Raj Singh, Ram Raj, Sansar Singh having their licenced rifal and guns, the present accused-revisionist having country-made pistol belayed the victim and said that today is the appropriate day to kill the victim. On exhortation by the other accused Bux Raj Singh fired at the victim. The Bullet hit the victim on his stomach. Despite having got gun shot injury the victim could run to the village Vinot. Victim was treated in the hospital and could recover from the bullet injury. From the FIR version, the role of firing at the victim is assigned to Bux Raj Singh. The prosecution story later on got changed and on the basis of some confessional statement of the accused revisionist annd alleged recovery, the role of firing at the victim has been assigned to the present revisionist. The victim has not named the accused-applicant as assailant. He said that the fire was made from behind and he did not see who fired at him. It appears that entire family of the accused-revisionist has been implicated in the offence. The accused-revisionist is in jail since 5.6.2022.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present revision is required to be allowed and the accused-revisionist is to be enlarged on bail.
The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge PASCO Act is set aside.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact, let accused-revisionist, Mohit Singh be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Kumar Manish.
