Rohit Kumar (Minor) Thru. Brother In Law ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10186 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rohit Kumar (Minor) Thru. Brother In Law ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 4 September, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53362
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 235 of 2022   
 
   Rohit Kumar (Minor) Thru. Brother In Law Rajesh Yadav    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Mohd.Imran Khan, Mohammad Imaran, Mohd.Imran Khan   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 11
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.     

1. As per Office report dated 09.05.2022, it is apparent that the service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. However, today when the case is called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 to oppose the present case which relates to enlargement of juvenile on bail. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Unnao, in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2020, which was preferred against the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Case No. 31 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 438 of 2018, under Sections 302, 147, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station-Maurawan, District-Unnao.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived.

5. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, at the time of the incident was about 16 years and six months, has been languishing in jail since 25.10.2018. He has no criminal history, which fact has not been opposed by the opposite side. As per Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the maximum punishment that can be awarded to a juvenile is three years which is however subject to the other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that taking note of period of incarceration as also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), according to which the bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

7. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner."

(Emphasis supplied)

9. It is further stated co-accused namely Neeraj Kumar S/o Ganesh Prasad, Sandeep Kumar S/o Ram Shankar Lodh, Sajan @ Vijay S/o Chhatrapal Lodh and Madhuri W/o Rambabu, have been acquitted by the trial Court itself vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Session Trial No. 18 of 2019 (State vs. Neeraj Kumar and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 438 of 2018, under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149, 201 IPC, Police Station-Maurawan, District-Unnao. The copy of the judgment and order dated 11.02.2025 placed before this Court is taken on record.

10. Taking note of aforesaid aspect of the case, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may come with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

11. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below as there was ample evidence against the revisionist, but he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

12. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including that co-accused namely Neeraj, Sandeep, Sajan and Madhuri have already been acquitted by the trial Court as also the period of incarceration i.e. about seven years, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

13. The judgment and order dated 09.11.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Unnao, in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2020, which was preferred against the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Case No. 31 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 438 of 2018, under Sections 302, 147, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station-Maurawan, District-Unnao, are hereby set aside.

14. Let Rohit Kumar (Minor) Thru. Brother In Law Rajesh Yadav of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his brother/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his brother that he will take due care of the juvenile, will not allow him to indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity or join the company of unlawful elements, will keep him under strict control, shall not attempt or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses, shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence, shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed either personally or through her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

15. For a period of one year from today, the Juvenile shall appear before the District Probation Officer concerned along with his natural guardian on 10th of every month.

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

September 4, 2025

Vinay/-