Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 414 of 2021 Revisionist :- Roshan Gond Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, present in person.
This Criminal Revision has been directed against the judgement and order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Newly Constructed POCSO Court No.2), Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2020 whereby dismissing the appeal, the order dated 22.10.2020 of Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur has been upheld. By order dated 22.10.2020, Juvenile Justice Board had rejected the bail application of the accused revisionist in Case No. 116 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2020 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Motichand Pasi on 25.10.2020, his cousin brother, Virendra Kumar Bharti @ Lalbabu Pasi (deceased) had gone after receiving a call on his mobile saying that Shailendra Yadav was calling him and this fact was told by him to Dinesh Chauhan and Pramod Yadav and thereafter dead body of the deceased was found under the jurisdiction of P.S. Bhudkuda in bush by the side of road. Suspicion is expressed in F.I.R. that because of some money dispute, murder of deceased has been committed by co-accused, Shailendra Yadav and Arvind Yadav who are named in F.I.R. In post-mortem report, deceased is found to have sustained as many as seven injuries and cause of death of the deceased was found to be ante- mortem head injury.
Submission is that revisionist is innocent. He is not named in the F.I.R. His name has come in the confessional statement of co-accused, Deepak Yadav who has not been named in the F.I.R., copy of the confessional statement of co-accused, Deepak Yadav is annexed at page no. 33 of the paper book, which has no evidentiary value. It is alleged that revisionist and other co-accused (five in number) have killed the deceased. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the pointing out of the revisionist or from his possession. No motive has been assigned to the revisionist to cause death of the deceased. Both the accused named in the F.I.R. i.e. Shailendra Yadav and Arvind Yadav and third accused, Deepak Yadav have been allowed bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court, copy of orders are annexed at page nos. 43-48 of the paper book; he has no criminal history; he is in jail since 6.03.2020.
It is next argued that as per the provision under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015 which provides that the bail of the juvenile can be dismissed only if the court satisfies itself that release of the accused on bail would bring him in association with known criminal or that it would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. Without any material collected by the prosecution to that effect, the bail has been arbitrarily rejected merely on the ground that it found the offence of grave nature which has alleged to have been committed by the accused revisionist.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail of revisionist.
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. Both the orders of the Appellate Court and Juvenile Justice Board deserve to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Roshan Gond be released on bail in the aforementioned Case No. & the Sections on his father Sri Omprakash Gond furnishing a personal bond of 1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board with condition that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened 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 A. Mandhani