Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3230 of 2021
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Chandra Kumar Rai,Upendra Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
With
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1105 of 2022
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Kumar Rai,Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Upendra Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. These revisions have been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.8.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2021.
3. The appeal was instituted against the order dated 26.7.2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh whereby the bail applications of the revisionists in Case Crime No. 160 of 2020 under Section 376D, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Bilariyaganj, District-Azamgarh were rejected.
4.The accused-Bipin was a student of high-school and he was around 13 year old whereas the revisionist Mantu was around 17-1/2 years old on the date of the incident. The prosecutrix was also around 15 years of age. The accused-revisionists have no no criminal history except the present case. The accused-revisionists are in jail since 26.7.2021.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-revisionists on bail.
6. The present revisions are allowed.
7. The impugned order dated 13.8.2021 is set aside.
8. Let accused-revisionists Bipin and Mantu be released by the trial court on bail in the above case crime number on their each furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The revisionists shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 revisionists 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 them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the revisionists misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the revisionists fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The revisionists 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 revisionists 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023
Kumar Manish.
