Deepak Vishwakarma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4856 of 2019

Revisionist :- Deepak Vishwakarma And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar,Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Surbhan Singh, learned Counsel for revisionists, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionists involved in Case Crime No. 138 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Tabharpur, District Azamgarh has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh vide judgement and order dated 25.05.2019.

¶8

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 25.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2019. Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the revisionists is made out and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The juvenile-revisionists are in custody since 25.05.2019. They have been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has become final. It is further submitted that complainant of case is not an eye witness and major co-accused Prem Vishwakarma has already been granted bail on 29.03.2019 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.12797 of 2019 while the applicants are minor and in custody.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for bail and supported the judgements of Courts below.

¶11

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionists and other co-accused persons are alleged to have murdered the deceased Devtadeen Vishvakarma.

¶12

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.

¶13

"12 Bail of Juvenile.--(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in

¶14

force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appears 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.

¶15

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

¶16

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section(1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶17

In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶18

Apart from it, in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld) , this Court has observed that seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.

¶19

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rival contention of learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of records available on file, report of Probation Officer, there is no ground so as to justify the rejection of bail of juvenile under Section 12 of the said Act, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside.

¶20

Let juvenile-revisionists - Deepak Vishwakarma and Deepu Vishwakarma involved in Case Crime No. 138 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Tabharpur, District Azamgarh be released on bail in the custody of Pradeep (brother-in-law of revisionists) on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned to its satisfaction and to file an undertaking that he will look after the juvenile-revisionists carefully and will not let him involve in any criminal case or associate with known or known criminals and shall produce him when and wherever, as directed, before Juvenile Justice Board or any other Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.1.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Deepak Vishwakarma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Vishwakarma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh Lodhi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shivpratap Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna @ Satyendra Pal Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Panwar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Hasmeen @ Nazreen Vs State of U.P. and Another