Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1296 of 2020 Revisionist :- Arbaaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.2.2020 passed by the Ld. First Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun, in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2020 (CNR No.-UPBN01-001408-2020 as well as order dated 27.1.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 167 of 2019 under sections 376D, 392, 343, 306 IPC, Police Station Dataganj, District Badaun, whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
As per F.I.R. lodged by the victim/informant Abida Bano, she had married two years ago with Sahdab Khan, because of her being indisposed in January, 2019 she had come to her mayke village Salempur, where she had gone to bring medicine and then in Dataganj at the Ultrasound Centre of Dr. Kamlesh, co- accused Sameer and accused-revisionist Arbaaj and co-accused Johib met her and told her that her husband's condition was not good as he was sick and they would drop her at her husband's place. Believing them she went with them and thereafter all the three had taken her to Sikandrabad and inside the house she was closed and committed rape upon her in turn. She cried aloud but no one came. Next day, she was taken in some Dehat area and kept there for about one week and whatever jewellery she was having, all was snatched away. She was being carried to Delhi and she tried to talk to her father on phone by mobile phone of some co-passenger but these accused had brought her to Delhi and from there they fled. When father tried to lodge F.I.R. at P.S. Dataganj, the same was not written rather abusive language were used against him.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that both the forums i.e. Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court have not taken into consideration the law which is provided for dealing with the bail application of the revisionist and rejected the bail of the revisionist erroneously only on the ground of seriousness of the offence.It is further argued that revisionist is innocent. He is cousin brother of the main accused Sameer with whom deceased/victim/informant was having affair which is evident from the statement of co-accused annexed at page 41 of the affidavit and it is clearly stated by the said co-accused that accused-revisionist was not with him, only co-accused Johib was with her. Only because she felt guilty from within, she had committed suicide. He is in jail since 3.7.2019. It is further argued that age of the revisionist is found to be 15 years 10 months and 7 days on the date of occurrence by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 2.1.2020 and therefore he was below 16 years of age and hence a juvenile. For considering the bail of juvenile, as per settled law, the gravity of offence is not to be seen. Only three criteria laid down under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act ought to be taken into consideration which are that, if accused-revisionist is released on bail there is no likelihood of his coming in association with any known criminal or that his release would not expose him to any moral, physical and psychological danger/threat or that ends of justice would not be defeated by his release. He has no criminal history. Moreover in district probation officer's report, nothing adverse has been recorded in the said report against the accused-revisionist which would lead this court to the belief that in case he is released on bail, he would come in association with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has argued that victim has committed suicide and the F.I.R. which has been lodged by the victim herself, in that it is clearly stated by her that revisionist was also involved in commission of gang rape upon her, pursuant to which only, suicide has been committed. A horrendous crime has been committed. Post-mortem has been shown which is annexed in the case diary in which ligature mark and two other injuries are found to have been sustained by her. Cause of death is recorded as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
Looking to the fact that victim after having been gang-raped by not only accused-revisionist but also by co-accused, has committed suicide finding the offence conscience shaking, therefore, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail and the rider provided under Section 12 is that in case ends of justice would not be met, bail could be rejected and in this case, in case, the revisionist is released on bail, ends of justice would not be met. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the revisionist, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the revisionist is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 12.4.2021 A.P. Pandey