Allowed

Ranjana v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021CRLR/582/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed by a juvenile challenging the rejection of her bail application. The High Court observed the lower court's reliance on technical grounds despite a favorable District Probation Officer report. The court allowed the revision and released the juvenile on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.12.2020 set aside; bail application allowed; juvenile released on bond of Rs. 50,000 subject to probation conditions.

Ranjana Vs State of Up and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 582 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Ranjana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ranjit Saxena,Mahesh Kumar,Swati Agrawal Srivastava,Yashpal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party.

¶6

Revisionist is aggrieved of order dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad whereby application for releasing the juvenile on bail has been rejected on the ground that the person, who has filed this petition is a resident of another village whereas mother and aunt of juvenile are available and they could have taken the custody of the applicant/revisionist.

¶7

Sri Jai Singh Yadav, in his turn, submits that revisionist is named accused, her name has been mentioned in the FIR. It is submitted that specific role has been assigned to the juvenile of beating the deceased persons with 'sticks and lathi'. He further submits that he may be granted time to file some photographs on record. He submits that he had filed his vakalatnama on 30.07.2021, but these photographs were not available to him, therefore, they could not be filed. Merely, because opposite party has not filed some documents, therefore, they cannot be perused at the instance of said party without they being part of the record.

¶8

Even otherwise, while considering a bail application of juvenile, Court is required to consider the report of District Probationary Officer to gather what will be the impact and import of release of a juvenile on the social, psychological and physical well-being of the juvenile and is not required to even go into the gravity of the offence.

¶9

Perusal of the report of the District Probationary Officer, Prayagraj reveals that he has given following report in regard to the juvenile, which is as under:-

¶10

37- क्या बालक/ ्र ं	बालिलका किकसी दूर्व्य�वहार के अध्यधीन रहा हैः ू्व्य� ्र	्ुि
् क्र० सं०	ि ि ू्व्य� े ् ै दूर्व्य�वहार का प्रकार	अभ्युकि
1	मौलि#क दूर्व्य�वहार माता-कि%ता/सहोदर भाई- बहन/किनयो ा/अन्य(कृ%या किवकिनर्दिष्ट करें)	कोई नहीं।
2	शारीरिरक दूर्व्य�वहार(कृ%या किवकिनर्दिष्ट करें)	कोई नहीं।
3	लैंकि3क दूर्व्य�वहार माता-कि%ता/सहोदर भाई-	कोई नहीं।

¶11

	बहन/किनयो ा/अन्य(कृ%या किवकिनर्दिष्ट करें)
4	ि्ृ िि्दि्ट ें अन्य(कृ%या किवकिनर्दिष्ट करें	कोई नहीं।

¶12

38क्या बालक/ बालिलका किकसी अ%राध का %ीकि4त है।

¶13

हां/नहीं

¶14

39क्या बालक/ बालिलका का इस्तेमाल किकसी 3ैं3 द्वारा अथवा वयस्कों द्वारा अथवा वयस्कों के

¶15

समूह द्वारा किकया जा रहा है अथवा बालक को स्वा%क के किवतरण के लिलये इस्तेमाल किकया जा रहा है। हां/नहीं

¶16

40क्या बालक/ बालिलका की प्रवृतित घर से भा3ने की है, एकिद कोई हो। हां/नहीं

¶17

41वे %रिरस्थिस्थतितयां जिजनमें बालक/ बालिलका को कि3रफ्तार किकया 3या थाः- %ुलिलस

¶18

42अ%राध में बालक/ बालिलका की तथाकथिथत भूकिमकाः- अस्%ष्ट।

¶19

43तथाकथिथत अ%राध का कारणः कोई नहीं।

¶20

(i) माता -कि%ता की उ%ेक्षा कोई नहीं।

¶21

(ii) माता-कि%ता का अतित संरक्षण कोई नहीं।

¶22

(iii) माता-कि%ता का आ%रातिधक र्व् य वहार कोई नहीं।

¶23

(iv) माता-कि%ता का प्रभाव कोई नहीं।

¶24

(v) हम उम्र समूह का प्रभाव कोई नहीं।

¶25

(vi) बुरी आदते (स्वा%क/%किदरा #रीदना) कोई नहीं। द

¶26

अन्य (कृ%या किवकिनर् द िष्ट करें) कोई नहीं।

¶27

(vii)

¶28

¶29

44क्या बालक/ बालिलका को %हले भी किकसी अ%राध के लिलए कि3रफ्तार किकया 3या है, एकिद हां तो

¶30

बाल दे#रे# संस्था में आवास सकिहत ब्योरे दें। हां/नहीं

¶31

............................................................................ 45कि%छली संस्थाकिनक/मामला %ूव�वृत तथा वैयकि क दे#रे# योजना, एकिद कोई हो - नहीं।

¶32

46बालक/ बालिलका का शारीरिरक रू%ः- सामान्य।

¶33

47बालक/ बालिलका के स्वास्थ्य की स्थिस्थतितः- (तिLकिकत्सा जांL रिर%ोर्ट� सकिहत) सामान्य।

¶34

48बालक/ बालिलका की मानजिसक स्थिस्थतितः- सामान्य।

¶35

49अन्य कोई किर्टप्%णीः-

¶36

कोई नहीं। ि

¶37

जांL का %ररणाम ि

¶38

¶39

1- भावनात्मक कारण..................... वत�मान में कोई नहीं। ........................

¶40

2- शारीरिरक स्थिस्थतित........................ सामान्य .........................................

¶41

3- बुतिPमता .................................. सामान्य ..........................................

¶42

4- सामाजिजक तथा आर् थ िक कारण – सामाजिजक स्थिस्थतित सामान्य आर् थ िक स्थिस्थतित कमजोर।

¶43

थ थ

¶44

5- समस्याओं के सुझाए 3ए कारणः- - किकशोरी का सुधारात्मक %रिरवारिरक वातावरण में

¶45

सकारात्मक सुधार संभव है। किकशोरी के सम्बन्ध में %ास %4ोस से किमली जुली प्रतितकिक्रया प्राप्त हुयी है। किकशोरी को कौशल%ूण� र्व् य वसातियक प्रथिशक्षण काय�क्रम से जोडना किकशोरी के रोज3ार%रक भकिवष्य में

¶46

य सहायक हो3ा।

¶47

किकशोरी के कम उम्र व सम्भाकिवत भकिवष्य को ध्यान में र#ते हुये उतिLत काय�वाही करने की कृ%ा करें।

¶48

ह०अ%० (किववेक कुमार किद् व ेदी) किवतिध सह %रिरवीक्षा अतिधकारी प्रया3राज।

¶49

A perusal of the report reveals that it is categorically mentioned that social status is normal, but economic condition is weak. It is further mentioned that if juvenile is connected to the family environment, then both correctional and positive reform is possible. It is further mentioned that juvenile is to be attached to vocational training programme, so that she may be able to earn

¶50

¶51

her livelihood in future. There is no criminal antecedent in regard to the juvenile.

¶52

A perusal of the FIR reveals that incident had taken place at 11:30 am whereas FIR was lodged at 21:15 hours, though, according to the version in the FIR, information in regard to the incident was provided to the police on Dial-100 in the morning/afternoon hours itself and it was police, who had taken the injured for treatment yet there is no mention of the fact as to why FIR was lodged after considerable delay of about 9 hours.

¶53

At this stage, Sri Jai Singh Yadav, in his counter, further adds that FIR in fact was lodged at 12:15 pm and not at 21:15 hours. It is submitted that there is recovery of 'lathi' from all the accused persons including the present applicant and therefore, there is no justification in releasing the applicant on bail.

¶54

After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, it is evident that firstly, there is allegation on group of six persons qua each of the injured/deceased. It is mentioned in the FIR that Ravindra Bahadur was surrounded by Prem Shankar, Buddhiman Singh, Surendra, Ram Singh, Maan Singh and Ajay Kumar, who had beaten him with 'lathi and danda'.

¶55

Ram Ji Singh was surrounded by Saheb Lal, Ramayan, Hari Krishna, Chandra Shekhar, Ashish Yadav, Surendra Singh, who had brutally beaten Ram Ji Singh. Thereafter, there are omnibus allegations against the present applicant. Besides this, it has also come on record that there is old enmity between the two families in regard to land and earlier on two occasions, complaints have been filed by the present accused party against the complainants and in one of the case, some of the members of the complainant party have been convicted under the provisions of Section 302 IPC.

¶56

Notwithstanding these facts, the fact of the matter is that in regard to the revisionist-’X’ (name of petitioner (juvenile) as 'X', whose identity is being protected in view of the direction given by the Supreme Court in case of Shilpa Mittal vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Others; AIR 2020 SC 405. ) , the report of the District Probationary Officer is unambiguous and therefore, instead of dismissing the bail application on technical grounds, it being filed in the hands of one Anand Kumar, who is resident of another village and is son of 'mausi' of the juvenile, Court could have directed handing over of the juvenile in custody of her natural guardian namely, mother-Saraswati Devi and could have asked Saraswati Devi to furnish adequate bonds for compliance of the order, therefore, in my opinion, rejection of bail application on hyper-technical ground, is not just and correct under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this is a fit case to enlarge the juvenile on bail.

¶57

¶58

In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed . The impugned order dated order dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 193 of 2020 U/S 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Koraon, District-Prayagraj , are hereby set aside and reversed. The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.

¶59

Let the revisionist, 'X' through her natural guardian be released on bail in the aforesaid case, upon her natural guardian furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad subject to the following conditions:

¶60

(i) that the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶61

(ii) The revisionist and her natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of October, 2021 and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.

¶62

(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up her social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶63

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶64

(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶65

(vi) 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.

¶66

Order Date :- 6.9.2021 Vikram/-

¶67

Ranjana v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girdhari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajaram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shyam Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vandana Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Verma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another