Allahabad High Court
Vipin Singh Thru. His Father ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 698 of 2021
Revisionist :- Vipin Singh Thru. His Father Santosh Singh @ Guddu Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Chandra Mishra,S.S.P. Gupta,Shashi Kant Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Vide order dated 28.10.2021, notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and the same was served upon opposite party no.2.
Case called out.
None is present for opposite party no.2.
The Court is proceeding in the aforesaid circumstances.
Heard Sri Rajeshwar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
Instant Criminal Revision has been filed for setting-aside the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2021 (Vipin Singh vs. State of U.P. & another) arising out of judgment and order dated 16.08.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.30 of 2021, under Sections 376, 328, 342 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Jaitpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.
Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the revisionist was not involved in committing the offence and he was implicated in the instant matter due enmity. He next added that there are material discrepancies in the statement of the victim and the other witnesses. He next added that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have been declared hostile as they have not supported the version of the prosecution. Adding his argument, he submits that even the victim has stated that she could not identify the present revisionist at the time of the incident. He next added that the victim herself has stated that she has given the statement at the instance of family members, as such there is no fate of the trial and the present revisionist is being harassed for his no fault. He next added that the revisionist has no previous criminal antecedent which has been mentioned in para 48 of affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 14.02.2021. He next added that D.P.O. report is also not against the revisionist and the guardian of the present revisionist undertakes that he will not be involved in committing any offence further. He next added that there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future, and as such the revisionist may be released on bail.
It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act. It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined in favour of the juvenile and no adverse material is available against the revisionist. It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.
There is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Resultantly, the criminal revision is hereby allowed.
The impugned Judgment and order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2021 (Vipin Singh vs. State of U.P. & another) arising out of judgment and order dated 16.08.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.30 of 2021, under Sections 376, 328, 342 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Jaitpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar are hereby set aside.
It is directed that the the revisionist be released on bail in aforementioned case crime number on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that the father 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 :- 13.2.2023
KR
