Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 185 of 2021 Revisionist :- Mukesh (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Shukla learned counsel for the revisionist through Video Conferencing.
Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. is present and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2020 (Mukesh vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the criminal appeal has been rejected and order dated 23.9.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar in Case Crime NO. 85 of 2020 under sections 302 IPC, Police Station Captainganj, District Kushinagar at Padrauna whereby the bail of the accused-revisionist has been rejected.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by Ramagya Prasad, father of the deceased, the prosecution case is that on 10.3..2020 at about 2.00 p.m., his son Anil (deceased) had an altercation with co-accused Bechan Prasad of his village with whom he had dispute relating to land and because of that being annoyed, Bechan Prasad, co-accused and his two sons namely, Durgesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar (revisionist) had assaulted the deceased by knife and caused his death. In post-moretem report, the deceased is found to have sustained two incised wound and cause of death is recorded to be due to internal bleeding as a result of ante-mortem injurites.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the accused-revisionist was a minor aged about 17 years 06 months and 22 days old on the date of occurrence as per the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 19.8.2020, which is annexed at page-43 of the paper book. He has drawn attention to the statement of witnesses namely Smt. Indrawati and Smt. Anusuiya which is annexed at page-41 of the paper book in which both have stated that Bechan had made assault by 'Hasiya' upon the deceased while role of catching hold has been assigned to the accused-revisionist and co-accused Durgesh Kumar. Further, it is argued by him that as per section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile is required to be released on bail if there appears that his release is not likely to bring him in association with some known criminal or that he would not be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. He has also drawn attention to the report of District Probation Officer, Kushinagar, which is annexed at pages 45-48 of the paper book, in which nothing adverse has been mentioned by the District Probation Officer against the revisionist. All these facts have been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court, hence the revisionist deserves to be allowed on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the release of revisionist on bail and could not controvert the aforesaid.
In consideration of bail of a juvenile, the seriousness of the offence is not to be seen. The three considerations, which are laid down in law, are that his release on bail should not bring him in association with any known criminal or that it should not expose him to any moral, physical and psychological threat or ends of justice should not be defeated by his release. No evidence has been produced before the forums below which could lead them to draw those conclusions. Both the forums have dismissed the bail application of the accused only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and on the nature of offence being serious.
Looking to the fact that there is only role of catching hold assigned to the revisionist and he is also found to be a juvenile of 17 years 06 months 22 days in conflict with law at the time of occurrence and nothing having been found against him in the report of District Probation Officer, hence this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail.
In view of above, this court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 23.09.2020 as well as order dated 05.11.2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Mukesh (Minor) be released on bail during trial through its natural guardian mother Lilawati Devi on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board with condition that she shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal 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.
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 AU