1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-revisionist, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, and perused the revision, including the Annexures attached therewith.
2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the order 06.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.23/2018 and affirming the order dated 01.05.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur, rejecting bail application of the revisionist in FIR No.0280 of 2018, under Sections 302, 323 and 504 IPC lodged at Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur.
3. This revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist, who was juvenile, a child in conflict with law on the date of incident, which took place on 23rd September, 2018. The revisionist is one of the four accused in the said FIR.
4 The allegations in the FIR are that the revisionist, her mother, brother and father came on the spot where the complainant was raising a wall; they started abusing the complainant and assaulting him by Lathi and Danda; and in the meantime, the complainant's son Raju, aged about 22 years, came there, and father of the revisionist and her brother Raj Kumar assaulted him by spear, and as a result of the injuries sustained, Raju died on the spot.
5. The Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 1st May, 2019 had rejected the application of the revisionist for bail on the ground that if the revisionist were to be released on bail, there was possibility of affecting her moral, physical and psychological aspects of her personality. The appellate Court vide impugned order has rejected the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
6. Considering the allegations against the revisionist, and the fact that she did not hit the deceased, and the role of assaulting the deceased by spear is to her father and brother, the revisionist has been in custody since 24th September, 2018, it would be appropriate to enlarge her on bail.
7. Thus, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 06.08.2019 and 01.05.2019 are set-aside.
8 Let revisionist-Mala Alias Deepmala, accused of the aforesaid FIR, be released on bail on her furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the accused-revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(ii) the accused-revisionist shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii) in case, the the accused-revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(iv) the accused-revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
[D.K. Singh, J.] Order Date :- 18.12.2019 MVS/-