Allowed

Prince Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023CRLR/528/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, filed by a juvenile accused challenging the rejection of his bail and appeal. The High Court held that the accused, playing only an exhorting role, made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist Prince Tomar was granted bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding court appearances and absence.

Prince Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 528 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Prince Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Sunder Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the state and perused the record.

¶6

The present revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2021 (Prince Tomar (Minor) Vs. State of U.P.) which was preferred against the order dated 22nd December, 2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Case No. 105 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 514 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Najibabad, District Bijnor, rejecting the bail application of the accused-revisionist. The learned appellate court has also rejected the appeal considering the heniousness of the offence and taking into consideration the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶7

In short compass, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that informant Jagat Singh lodged the first information report on 27.09.2021 at about 20:41 hours with regard to an incident which took place on 27.09.2021 at 16:30 hours against Man Singh @ Manu and two-three unknown persons. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not named in the first information report. In the incident dated 27.09.2021, Rajeev, who is brother of the informant received fire-arm injury caused by co-accused Man Singh @ Manu. Thereafter, he was taken to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Combined Hospital, Bijnor wherein injuries were examined in which one injury was found on his body but Rajeev succumbed to injuries during his treatment on 24.10.2021. In the meantime, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of injured Rajeev Kumar was recorded in which he has made allegation that on the exhortation of co-accused Boby @ Deepak Kumar, Kaushal and the present revisionist, main accused Man Singh @ Manu fired at him which hit to his chest and he fell down.

¶8

On the strength of aforesaid statement, it is argued that main role of causing injury has been assigned to co-accused Man Singh @ Manu and the case of the present revisionist is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Man Singh @ Manu. It is pointed out that identically situated co-accused Kaushal @ Kulvinder and Boby @ Deepak Kumar have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 18th April, 2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 488 of 2022 and dated 4th

¶9

April, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.302 of 2022. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile vide order dated 6th December, 2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor, as he was 14 years and three months old at the time of incident dated i.e. 27th September, 2021. There is no chance of the revisionist fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The revisionist is languishing in jail since 3rd October, 2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter as argued by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as the fact that main role has been assigned to co-accused Man Singh @ Manu and the case of present revisionist is distinguishable with his case and only role of exhortation has been assigned by the injured (now deceased) to the present revisionist along with co-accused Kaushal @ Kulvinder and Boby @ Deepak Kumar, this Court is of the view that the revisionist has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the revision is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the revisionist is set-aside.

¶13

Let revisionist-Prince Tomar be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 revisionist 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.

¶18

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 7.2.2023

¶20

Sushil/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prince Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Banti Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rukhsar Vs State of U.P.

Xxxx- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh @ Motu (Minor) Vs State of U.P.and Another