Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 199 of 2021 Revisionist :- Chand (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sujata Choudhary,Mohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Ram Ashrey Kashyap
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Ms. Sujata Choudhary, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri Ram Ashrey Kashyap, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Case No.24 of 2020 (Chaand Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No.414 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kankerkhera, District Meerut and impugned judgment and order dated 7.8.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut in Second Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2020 (Chaand Vs. State).
It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. was lodged against six accused persons including revisionist with general allegations. The statement of informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which general allegations are levelled against all the six accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to applicant. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that other five accused persons had already been granted bail by this Court and bail orders have been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the present criminal revision. He argues that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and while deciding the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board has solely considered the gravity of the offence alleged and had not even considered the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act'). He argues that the Appellate Court had committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the bail prayer.
I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who do not record any reasons as required in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.
Considering the age of the revisionist who is minor and in custody since 25.4.2019, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 6.5.2020 and 7.8.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Chand be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be accepted as a true copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Kpy