1. Heard Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
2. The instant revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Unnao, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2019 - Abhishek Yadav Vs. State of U.P., as well as order dated 25.01.2019, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Bail No. 1/2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2018, under Section 366 I.P.C. and Section 16 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao, whereby the bail application of the applicant-revisionist has been rejected. Further prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made. Another criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2020 - Abhishek Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another has been filed through e-filing mode on behalf of revisionist in which bail has been sought in added Section being Sections 363, 376, 306 I.P.C. including Section 366 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. In Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2020, order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Unnao as well as order dated 25.09.2018, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao have been challenged. Both the revisions are being heard and decided by this common order.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is in custody since 25.04.2018 and has spent nearly 2 years and 9 month's in jail. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the report of the District Probation Officer, Unnao wherein no adverse remark has been recorded against the applicant and it is reported that his conduct has been good during his incarceration and also that the revisionist does not have any criminal history.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and also looking into the period of incarceration as well as report of the District Probation Officer, I am of the opinion that revisionist has made out a case for grant of bail.
7. In view of above, the impugned order dated 13.02.2019 and 05.01.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Unnao, as well as order dated 25.01.2019 and 25.09.2018, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao, are hereby set aside.
8. The revisions are allowed.
9. Let the revisionist Abhishek Yadav be released on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 171 of 2018, under Sections 366, 363, 376, 306 I.P.C. and Section 16, 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(i) The parents/guardians of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to get into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and they will make best efforts for improvement of the juvenile
(ii) The revisionist and his parents/guardians shall remain present before the Board/trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against the juvenile under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the revisionist 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 revisionist 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law.
11. The Court below is directed to sent the bail bonds and list of sureties submitted by the revisionist, to this Court for keeping them on record.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)