Jai Vijay Singh @ Vikas Singh, Thru. His Father Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 54 of 2023

¶3

Revisionist :- Jai Vijay Singh @ Vikas Singh, Thru. His Father Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Vide order dated 20.1.2023, notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and that too has been served upon him as per the office report.

¶8

Case called out.

¶9

None is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶10

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is proceeding to hear the matter.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Instant criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to allow the criminal revision and set-aside the impugned Judgment and order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2022, Jai Vijay Singh @ Vikas Singh Vs. State of U.P. and the order dated 8.11.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Juvenile Case No.264 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.384 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 304 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur. Further prayer is made to enlarge the accused-revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. The revisionist is not named in the F.I.R and his name came into light in the confessional statement of the revisionist and the other co-accused persons. There is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect the revisionist with the instant matter. He next added that the DPO report also favours the contention of the revisionist. He next added that other identically situated co-accused, Dipak Kumar Pandey @ Golu Dubey and Tej Pratap Singh @ Khushdil Singh, though they are not juvenile and their names also came into confessional statement with the

¶14

present revisionist, have been enlarged on bail by the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.15064 of 2022 and 14136 of 2022. He placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and another and referred para 10 thereof, which is quoted as under:-

¶15

"10. The matter can be looked at from another vantage. In case the revisionist were an adjult and stood charged of the offence that he faces with a weak circumstancital evidence of last seen and confession of the police, in all probability, it would have entitled him to bail pending trial. if on the kind of evidence forthcoming an adult would be entitled to bail, denying bail to a child in conflict with law may be denying the juvenile/child in conflict with law the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution."

¶16

Referring the aforesaid Judgment, he submits that if on the same kind of evidence, adult/accused were enlarged on bail then denying the bail to a child in conflict with law, be denying the juvenile/child in conflict with law the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. He further submits that in case the revisionist is enlarged on bail, the guardian of the revisionist undertakes that the revisionist will not again involve himself in committing the offence and the revisionist will always observe good conduct and behaviour.

¶17

It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act. It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined in favour of the juvenile and no adverse material is available against the revisionist. It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.

¶18

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.

¶19

There is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would 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

¶20

of justice.

¶21

Resultantly, the criminal revision is hereby allowed.

¶22

The impugned Judgment and order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2022, Jai Vijay Singh @ Vikas Singh Vs. State of U.P. and the order dated 8.11.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Juvenile Case No.264 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.384 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 304 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, are hereby set aside.

¶23

It is directed that the the revisionist be released on bail in aforementioned Case Crime No.384 of 2022 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that the father of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Ram Murti

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Vijay Singh @ Vikas Singh, Thru. His Father Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Vijay Singh @ Vikas Singh, Thru. His Father Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

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

Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and Others

Parmeshwar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. of U.P., Lko. and Others

Mohammad Kamal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja Yadav @ Virendra Kumar Thru. His Father Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Umakant Pasi @ Chainu Vs State of U.P and Anr.