(C.M. Application No.125901 of 2017)
1. This application seeks condonation of delay in filing the revision.
2. Heard.
3. Reasons shown are sufficient to condone the delay.
4.Allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the revision is condoned.
on memo of revision
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-revisionists, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, and perused the revision, including the Annexures attached therewith.
None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2017, which was preferred against the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki, rejecting bail application of the revisionist in Crime No.0044 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 and 376-D IPC, Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 POCSO Act lodged at Police Station Satrikh, District Barabanki.
3. While rejecting the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board was of the opinion that the if the revisionist were to be released on bail, it would defeat the ends of justice inasmuch as the trust and faith of family of the complainant in judicial system would get seriously affected. The appellate Court has rejected the appeal, and affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. The accused-revisionist was 17 years, 10 months and 13 days old on the date of incident. Thus, now he is major. Co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 4th December, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1202 of 2017. The revisionist in in jail since 10.04.2017.
4. Considering the fact that the revisionist is now major and co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, I find it a fit case where the accused-revisionist, who is in jail since 10.04.2017, should be enlarged on bail.
5. Thus, this revision is allowed, and the impugned judgment and orders dated 16.8.2017 and 13.07.2017 are set-aside.
6. Let the accused-revisionist (Shibbu Yadav @ Arjun Kumar), accused of the above-mentioned crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate concerned, subject to the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) the accused-revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 his 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 him, 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 him in accordance with law.
[D.K. Singh, J.] Order Date :- 18.12.2019 MVS/-