1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist/juvenile Sudheer @ Sudheer Kumar Kannaujia through his father Jagdish Prasad, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the "Act of 2015") against the judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018 confirming the order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad in Case Crime No. 02 of 2018, under Sections 302 & 201 Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C."), Police Station Haiderganj, District Faizabad.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Revision are as follows:-
On 01.01.2018, an F.I.R. No. 02/2018 was registered on the basis of written complaint made by Ashok Kumar Singh. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that on 31.12.2017, his son Divyanshu Singh aged about 15 years was taken away by Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh at about 12 PM during the day. Sheetal Singh @ Chahat is the resident of District Sultanpur but his maternal home is in the village of complainant. When the son of the complainant did not come back, he made a search but could not know anything. Next day again, the complainant and his family members started searching his son, then he found the dead body of his son in the field of sugarcane, which belongs to Kanhaiya Lal Singh. His son was murdered by cutting his neck with a sharp edged weapon. When Sheetal Singh was taking away his son-Divyanshu Singh, he was seen by Prateek Singh, the elder son of the complainant and Akash Singh, nephew of the complainant. It has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that he has full belief that his son was murdered by Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh. His son has some dispute of money with Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh and he used to threaten the deceased. The name of the revisionist came into light in the confessional statement made by co-offender Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist. The Court concerned took cognizance of the matter. The revisionist claimed juvenility and was so declared. Thereafter, the revisionist/juvenile moved bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, that was rejected. Against that order an appeal was preferred under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 and appeal too was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the said order/judgment, the revisionist/juvenile preferred the present revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/juvenile submitted that the revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. He has been implicated on the basis of the confessional statement of co-offender Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh. There is no eye witness of the incident. He further submitted that co-offender Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh, who was named in the F.I.R. and on the basis of whose confessional statement, the name of this revisionist came into light, has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2018 vide order dated 02.02.2021. He further submitted that revisionist is in jail since 02.01.2018. He has spent about 3-1/2 years in detention, as such, the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as judgment passed by the Appellate Court should be set aside and the revisionist/juvenile should be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, leanred A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 countered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that parity of Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh can not be given to the revisionist because main role in killing the son of the complainant was of this juvenile as has been stated by Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh in his confessional statement. Ante-mortem injuries noted in the post mortem report show how brutally revisionist along with other co-offenders murdered the son of the complainant. The case of the revisionist has been referred to the Sessions Court to be tried as an adult There is recovery of articles belonging to the deceased. The weapon of offence was recovered at the pointing out of the revisionist. He further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and judgment passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the revision should be dismissed.
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the record shows that the revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. His name surfaced, on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-offender Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh, who was named in the F.I.R. The recovery of weapon used in the crime i.e. "Gandasa" was recovered at the pointing out of all the three juveniles/miscreants. The revisionist is in jail since 02.01.2018. Another juvenile/co-offender Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh, who was named in the F.I.R., has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2018 vide order dated 02.02.2021. The revisinist has already spent 3-1/2 years in detention.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just to set aside the order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad and judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Faizabad.
10. The revision is allowed.
11. The order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad and judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Faizabad are hereby set aside.
12. The juvenile Sudheer @ Sudheer Kumar Kannaujia shall be released on bail in Case Crime No.02/2018 (supra). It is pertinent to mention here, since the revisionist has now turned an adult and of age more than 21 years, he shall be released on furnishing a personal bond himself and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned. Out of two sureties, one shall be mother/father or close relative of the revisionist, subject to following conditions :-
(i) The 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 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 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 revisionist 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.
(iv) The 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.
(v)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.