Allowed

Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2019CRLR/594/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the rejection of bail and dismissal of an appeal regarding a juvenile accused. The court held that no reasonable grounds existed to believe the juvenile would associate with criminals or face danger, setting aside impugned orders and granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was allowed; impugned orders set aside; juvenile released on personal bond with two sureties.

Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 594 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Chandra Pandey,Ajeet Singh,Balendra Deo Misra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.

¶7

This revision under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 19.1.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2018 (Ravi Shankar Pandey @ Mikkoo vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 7.12.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.164 of 2018, under Sections 363, 302, 201, 147 I.P.C., PS- Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer, in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dexit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a face wash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 21.5.2018 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionist-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.It is next submitted that the FIR has been lodged against unknown person and the revisionist is not named in the report. Subsequently his name surfaced in the statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Three other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court, copies of bail orders have been produced which are taken on record. There are general allegations and the revisionist has not been assigned any specific role.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the revisionist has criminal history and the mobile in question has been recovered from his possession. Goonda Act has also been imposed upon him.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.

¶13

The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.

¶14

"The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act."

¶15

There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.

¶16

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionists. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.

¶17

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 19.1.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi as well as order dated 7.12.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi, are hereby set-aside.

¶18

The revisionist, Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo resident of Village Barai, PS-Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi, involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No.164 of 2018 be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.9.2019

¶20

Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Vs State of U.P.

Sanni Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Paratap Agarval Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnish Pandey @ Ajay Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ibne Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another