Allahabad High Court
Adeesh Nishad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., ... on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1010 of 2022
Revisionist :- Adeesh Nishad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Deomani Tripathi,Abhay Pratap Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar,Ekta Bhartiya
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Perusal of the order sheet, it is evident that none was present for the opposite party no.2 on 18.1.2023 and taking into consideration, the Court passed the order that in case the opposite party no.2 will not remain present on the next date, the Court will proceed in absence of him.
Case called out.
None is present for the opposite party no.2.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is proceeding to hear the matter.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the Judgment and order dated 24.8.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) Act First/Upper Session Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No.33 of 2022, Adeesh Nishad Vs. State of U.P. & another, arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2020 under Sections 354, 386, 306, 376B, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5/6, 7/8 POCSO Act, and Section 67B I.T. Act, and Section 3(2) V SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. The revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. and his name came into light in the statement of the co-accused. There is no corroborative evidence against the revisionist so as to connect him with the instant matter except superfluous statement of co-accused persons. He further added that report of the D.P.R.O. is not against the revisionist and the same indicates that the revisionist is of good conduct and behaviour. Identically situated co-accused Alok Kumar Pathak @ Sipahi and Shivam Chauhan @ Sachin Chauhan have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7872 of 2020 and Criminal Revision No.764 of 2021, vide orders dated 11.5.2022 and 6.4.2022 respectively. The revisionist is seeking parity of the orders aforesaid. There is no criminal history of the revisionist/juvenile, which has been explained in para 12 of the bail application. The revisionist is in jail since 6.3.2020. In case the revisionist is enlarged on bail, the guardian of the revisionist undertakes that the revisionist will always observe good conduct and behaviour.
It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) 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. Further identically siutated co-accused Alok Kumar Pathak @ Sipahi and Shivam Chauhan @ Sachin Chauhan have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
The criminal revision is hereby allowed.
Resultantly, the Judgment and order dated 24.8.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) Act First/Upper Session Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No.33 of 2022, Adeesh Nishad Vs. State of U.P. & another is hereby set aside.
It is directed that the the revisionist be released on bail in aforementioned Case Crime No.109 of 2020 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 :- 27.1.2023
Ram Murti
