# Amit Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr. 354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 353 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-16 - **Bench:** Amar Singh Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-354-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-43633 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote juvenile accused under Sections 364, 302, and 201 IPC. Para 2: It is noted that the revisionist is twelve and a half years old, and specific legal provisions apply for juvenile bail. Para 3: Case facts: A report was lodged by Faiyyaz alleging that on 25.08.2014, the revisionist and three others took his son Adil to a crematorium after an altercation, where Adil's body was found the next day. Para 4: The Court heard arguments from the revisionist's counsel and the Additional Government Advocate (AGA); the informant did not appear. Para 5: A Probation Officer's report was filed, which only suggested that the revisionist requires "effective control." Para 6: The revisionist's counsel argued there is no evidence that release would lead to criminal association or danger, and that lower courts erred in their findings. Para 7: Counsel pointed out that similarly placed co-accused (Jikariya and Abdul Wahid) have already been granted bail. Para 8: The AGA opposed bail, citing the revisionist's criminal mindset, his previous escape from a juvenile home, and the mother's inability to control him. Para 9: The Court reviewed Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates bail as a rule unless specific exceptions (criminal association, danger, or defeat of justice) are proven. Para 10-11: Citing Delhi High Court precedents, the Court noted that the gravity of the offence is not a valid ground for refusing bail to a juvenile. Para 12-13: Citing Allahabad High Court precedents, the Court emphasized that the Act prioritizes reform over the nature of the crime. Para 14: The Court found no evidence on record or in the probation report to justify the exceptions under Section 12. Para 15-16: The Court quashed the lower courts' orders and allowed the revision. Para 17: The Court ordered the revisionist's release on bail upon the guardian providing a personal bond and two sureties. Revision Allowed. 4 All. Amit Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 355 List of Case Laws Cited * Mohd. Feroz alias Bhola Vs. State, (LAWS) (DLH) 2005-3-106 (Delhi High Court) * Master Niku Chaubey Vs. State, 2006 (2) JCC 720 (Delhi High Court) * Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) JIC 103 (Allahabad High Court) * Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld) (Allahabad High Court) ## Text 4 All. Amit Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 353 period of limitation provided by the statute there must be cogent and satisfactory reasons. Such reasons are lacking in present matter. 9. The application for condonation of delay has been moved by appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as under: "5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.--Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 10. There is period prescribed for initiation of every legal proceedings in Limitation Act, and such period may be extended in accordance with mandatory provisions of the Act. The said provisions of Section-5 make it explicitly clear and mandatory that an application for extension of prescribed period of limitation may be allowed only if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Courts that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. As discussed above, for deciding the matter of limitation not only the case of applicant/appellant should be considered, but the principles underlying the provisions the Act, which are based on public policy alongwith hardship and injustice to other party should also be considered. In the present matter, every consideration leads to inference against applicantappellant. It has also been proved that applicant-appellant had failed to satisfy this Court that he had sufficient cause for moving the application for setting aside the abatement or for not moving the substitution application within period of limitation or moving restoration application; therefore under the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act his application should not be allowed. 11. In present case there is no sufficient ground for condoning the deliberate very long delay in moving restoration application. In absence of any reasonable or sufficient ground, the Delay Condonation Application No.- 325634/ 2014 and Restoration Application No.- 325637/ 2014 are rejected. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Criminal Revision No.- 1852 Of 2015 Amit ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties 354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Revisionist: Shri Rajesh Pathak Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate Held - Para 1: This revision challenges the denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court for a juvenile accused under Sections 364, 302, and 201 IPC. Para 2: It is noted that the revisionist is twelve and a half years old, and specific legal provisions apply for juvenile bail. Para 3: Case facts: A report was lodged by Faiyyaz alleging that on 25.08.2014, the revisionist and three others took his son Adil to a crematorium after an altercation, where Adil's body was found the next day. Para 4: The Court heard arguments from the revisionist's counsel and the Additional Government Advocate (AGA); the informant did not appear. Para 5: A Probation Officer's report was filed, which only suggested that the revisionist requires "effective control." Para 6: The revisionist's counsel argued there is no evidence that release would lead to criminal association or danger, and that lower courts erred in their findings. Para 7: Counsel pointed out that similarly placed co-accused (Jikariya and Abdul Wahid) have already been granted bail. Para 8: The AGA opposed bail, citing the revisionist's criminal mindset, his previous escape from a juvenile home, and the mother's inability to control him. Para 9: The Court reviewed Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates bail as a rule unless specific exceptions (criminal association, danger, or defeat of justice) are proven. Para 10-11: Citing Delhi High Court precedents, the Court noted that the gravity of the offence is not a valid ground for refusing bail to a juvenile. Para 12-13: Citing Allahabad High Court precedents, the Court emphasized that the Act prioritizes reform over the nature of the crime. Para 14: The Court found no evidence on record or in the probation report to justify the exceptions under Section 12. Para 15-16: The Court quashed the lower courts' orders and allowed the revision. Para 17: The Court ordered the revisionist's release on bail upon the guardian providing a personal bond and two sureties. Revision Allowed. 4 All. Amit Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 355 List of Case Laws Cited * Mohd. Feroz alias Bhola Vs. State, (LAWS) (DLH) 2005-3-106 (Delhi High Court) * Master Niku Chaubey Vs. State, 2006 (2) JCC 720 (Delhi High Court) * Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) JIC 103 (Allahabad High Court) * Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld) (Allahabad High Court) (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.) 1. This revision has been preferred for release of the revisionist, who is juvenile against the judgement and order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad as well as order dated 25.3.2015 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act) in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2015, under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, PS Muradnagar, district Moradabad whereby the prayer for bail has been rejected by both the courts. 2. Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile aged twelve and half years and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.8.2014 a written report was lodged by the informant Faiyyaz at police station Murad Nagar, district Ghaziabad to the effect that on 25.8.2014 his son, Adil, aged about 18 years, had gone to play from villge with Amit, Abdulla, Amir Khan and Jikriya. During play, there was some altercations between Adil on one side and Amit, Abdulla, Khan and Jikriya on the other. In the evening all the four accused persons took away Adil, the deceased towards crematorium. When the accused were taking away the deceased, they were seen and stopped by Irshad and Alladin, but they did not stop and they were saying that you will meet Adil (deceased) tomorrow. The informant kept on searching his son throughout the night. When the informant reached crematorium next day at 9.15 AM, the dead body of the deased was lying which was tied around the neck. On the basis of the aforesaid report a case was registered against the revisionist and other co-accused at case crime No. 595 of 2004, under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, police station Murad Nagar, district Ghaziabad. 4. Heard Shri Rajesh Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 in spite of service of notice on him as per office report dated 20.7.2015. 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.9.2015, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the revisionist annexing therewith the report of the Probation Officer, Ghaziabad, which only indicates that effective control is required over the revisionist. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that if the revisionist will be released on bail, his release is likely to bring him in association with 356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or phychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellant Court have erred in holding that the release of the revisionist would not only defeat the ends of justice, but also bring the revisionist in the association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the similarly placed co-accused Jikariya and Abdul Wahid alias Abdul have been granted bail vide orders dated 9.9.2015 and 17.9.2015 respectively passed in Criminal Revision No. 1232 of 2015 and 1241 of 2015. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that the findings recorded by the learned lower appellant court that the revisionist was aware of the nature of the crime, which shows his criminal mind set, he absconded along with 91 prisoners from Juvenile home, and that her mother is the only guardian who is unable to control the revisionist effectively. Learned AGA further contends that the case of the co-accused, who have been granted bail is distinguishable from the present revisionst. 10. If we go by the statutory mandate, bail in case of a juvenile in conflict with law, is a general rule whereas refusal is an exception. Such refusal has also to be in consonance with the grounds mentioned in Section 12, which is reproduced below: 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, nothwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety ( or placed under 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 appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into associationn with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer incharge 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. (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 the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 4 All. Amit Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 357 11. Delhi High Court in Mohd. Feroz alias Bhola Vs. State, (LAWS) (DLH) 2005-3-106, after referring to section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children )Act, 2000, has held as under: "The aforesaid Section makes it mandatory for a person to be released if such person is apparently a juvenile unless of course, there are reasonable ground for believing that the release of such person 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. No such fears have been raised on the part of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the petitioner is accused of directly committing the murder of the deceased by use of a knife and he should be shown no mercy. This is not a question of mercy. The provision is mandatory and stipulates that such a person who is apparently a juvenile "shall" be released on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force subject only to the condition mentioned above in respect of which no fears have been raised by the prosecution." 12. In Master Niku Chaubey Vs. State, 2006 (2) JCC 720; Delhi High Court held that the nature of the offence is not a consideration for grant of bail, to the juvenile. The only considerations are those spelt out by Section 12, which requires bail to be granted unless the court feels that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It has been also held that seriousness of the allegations or gravity of the charges are not relevant in the case of a juvenile accused's request for bail. 13. In the case of Vijendra Kumar Mali v State of U.P. 2003 (1)JIC 103 this Court has held as under: "This Court in a number of judgments has categorically held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds existed. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the above provisions of the Act. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there would have been absolutely no necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid Act. The language of Section 12 of the Act itself lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile accused shall be released. Not only this, the Parliament re-considered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introduced the new Act No. 56 of 2000, raising the age from 16 to 18 years. This has been done keeping in view the welfare of the child so that even after committing an offence a child may not become a hardened criminal but he may reform himself." 14. This Court in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of UP, 2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld) has expressed the similar view and has granted bail to the juvenile offender in heinous offence and held that seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile. 358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 15. In this case, there is nothing either on record or in the report of the Probation Officer that after the release the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or phychological danger. 16. Taking in view the entire spectrum of facts and circumstances, materials available on record and legal position, the impugned orders passed by both the courts are neither sustainable on facts nor in law and accordingly, the same are liable to be set aside. Consequently the orders dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and 25.3.2015 passed by the Special Judge (EC Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed. 17. Resultantly, the revision is allowed. 18. Let the revisionist-Amit, involved in case crime No. 595 of 2014 (State Vs. Amit), under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, PS Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by the legal guardian of Amit and two heavy sureties of each amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad to the effect that he will not come into contact with other offenders. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 12.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. Service Single No.- 1868 Of 1994 Km. Tabassum Farooq ...Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Anil Kumar, Anurag Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Dubey Compassionate Appointment - PNB employee died in harness on 10.4.1977; bank's compassionate appointment scheme came into force in 1979; petitioner, a minor at the time of death, applied around 1992; claim rejected in 1993 as no scheme existed at the time of death and application was beyond prescribed period - Held, compassionate appointment is a concession under a valid scheme to meet immediate financial crisis, not a vested right; with 22 years' pendency, petitioner having become overage and family having survived, object of the scheme stood defeated; no ground for interference. (Paras 1-3, 9-13, 18-21) Writ Dismissed