Heard Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. O.P. No.2 has not appeared despite sufficient notice in person or through counsel.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2020 (Shivmangal Katheria Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 9.7.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 123 of 2020 under sections 147, 364, 302, 201 and 504 IPC, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Anil Kumar Valmiki, while his father, Prakash Narayan (deceased) was sitting at home on 29.05.2020 at about 12:30 p.m. then accused named in the F.I.R. who are five in number were sitting outside on well and were consuming liquor which was resisted by the informant and then the accused persons at about 3:00 p.m. had abducted informant's father and killed him near the Dandi Bada Ashram and thrown the dead body in river Ganges. His dead body could not be found after search and on 30.05.2020 at about 12:30 p.m., local residents had disclosed that dead-body of the deceased was lying in northern side of river which was found floating and the same was found to be of father of the informant. In post-mortem report, deceased is found to have sustained one contused swelling which was the cause of his death.
It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist has been implicated due to animosity. In statement given by co-accused, Ajay, Sonu, Anshu, Gagan and Bablu who were arrested and were named accused, they have taken name of revisionist to be involved in the present occurrence and assigned the role to the co-accused Saurabh that he had smothered the mouth of the deceased and accused-revisionist Shiv Mangal was riding the motor-cycle. Role of the accused-revisionist is that of assaulting the deceased with fists and kicks. The vehicle was recovered from the accused-revisionist Shiv Mangal and not from the possession of the co-accused Saurabh or from his pointing out. Age of the revisionist is found to be 15 years on the date of occurrence by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 9.7.2020, 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. Further it is argued that in the District Probation Officer Report, which has been filed today, it is mentioned that he has no criminal history. He was co-operating in agricultural work with his father and in case he is released on bail, he would revert to the same work. Nothing adverse has come on record against him. It is further argued 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 co-accused Saurabh has also been granted bail by this Court in Crl. Revision No. 1921 of 2020 vide order dated 5.1.2021, hence parity is claimed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail.
This Court has gone through the impugned orders and finds that trial court appears to have rejected the bail of the revisionist only on the ground of offence being of serious in nature and has not considered the principles cited above which was required to be considered for considering the bail of the Juvenile.
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 9.7.2020 as well as order dated 12.8.2020 of the appellate court are set aside..
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Shiv Mangal Katheria (Minor) be released on bail in the aforementioned Case No. & the Sections on his father Sri Ram Kishore 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 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.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 A.P. Pandey