Service of notice upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. None is present from the side of the opposite party no. 2.
Heard Sri Kamlendra Tripathi, 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 17.3.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2019 (Manoj Kabadi Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 16.11.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 109 of 2019, arising out of crime no. 17 of 2019, under sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Salimpur, District Bulandshahar, whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Sri Krishna Kumar, the prosecution case is that his father Vimal (deceased) aged about 50 years had gone to field on 5.1.2019 at about 8:00 am and did not return home in the night. Thereafter when effort was made to contact him on mobile phone, the same was reporting switched off. On 6.1.2019, informant's sister, Arvind along with informant had gone in search of the informant's father, his dead body was found lying in the field of Arvind in a drain. In post-mortem report, deceased is found to have sustained seven incised wounds by which he had died.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 age of the revisionist is found to be thirteen years and one months on the date of occurrence by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 16.11.2019 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 expose him to any moral, physical and psychological danger/threat or that ends of justice would not be defeated by his release. It is further argued that there is no direct evidence against the revisionist, although there is confessional statement recorded by the police in which the revisionist has stated that out of anger, after having consumed liquor, he had assaulted the deceased by Balkati and the same was concealed by him in a pit and the mobile phone of the deceased, after breaking the same had also been concealed by him which could be got recovered. The other statement which has come against him is that of daughter of the deceased i.e. Kiran, who has stated that she has full belief that revisionist might have killed his father Vimal. After having drawn attention to these pieces of evidence, it is argued by him that revisionist is innocent. He has been falsely implicated.
I find that there is no direct evidence in this case except confessional statement of accused-revisionist. Moreover in In District Probation Officer's report, nothing adverse has come against him which is annexed at page 77 to 79 of the affidavit, which would lead this court to the believe 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.
In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 16.11.2019 as well as order dated 17.3.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Manoj Kabadi (Minor) be released on bail through his father Suranjan Singh furnishing a personal bond of Rs. one lac and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board on furnishing an undertaking that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal and shall take care of his education and well being and that on each and every date of trial, he shall also appear before the court concerned. In case, he makes any default, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 A.P. Pandey