# Jagdish Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 569
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2205 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47275
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 - Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Sections
110,161,164 - Section 319 - Revision -
Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence - The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3/4 - a man
with a criminal history is to be exposed to
the depredations of another criminal, with
the
State
being
absolved
of
its
responsibility to protect his life, merely
because he has a criminal history to his
credit - The State, in its obligation to
protect human life, cannot discriminate on
the ground of one facing the threat,
carries behind him a history of crime -
prosecutrix has to be protected in all
events, so long as the trial continues or a
real
and
potent
threat
perception
persists.(Para 8)

Application seeking a direction to further
investigate the case made before trial judge -
rejected - reasoning - Police, after investigation,
have submitted a charge-sheet in the case
against one of the accused - opinion of the Trial
Court - Investigating Officer exculpated the
other co-accused opposite party no. 3, and coaccused, against whom, offence of gang rape,
has been alleged by the prosecutrix - as would
appear from her statement under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 recorded
by the Magistrate. (Para - 3)

HELD:- The Trial Judge shall proceed to record
the testimony of the prosecutrix, the first
informant and her father, if the evidence of
these witnesses has already not been recorded.
Trial Judge shall proceed to consider in the first
instance and before proceeding with the trial
further, whether a case to summon the third
opposite party, in the exercise of powers under
Section 319 of the Code is made out or not.
Trial Judge shall proceed to consider framing of
the appropriate charge(s) against the accused in
accordance with law, before proceeding to trial.
After the stage of reframing/further framing of
charges, if any, is over, the Trial Court shall
proceed with the trial expeditiously. (Para - 16)
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Revision disposed of.(E-6)

## Text

8 All. Jagdish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569

34. In present case too, it is required
on the part of the Magistrate to allow the
discharge application, but he has rejected
the
same
without
considering
the
provisions of law as well as judicial
pronouncement by the Court resulting into
inordinate delay of criminal proceeding.
Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, it
is required that discharge application be
allowed and revisionist be discharged.

35. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances of the case as well as law
discussed hereinabove, the impugned order
dated
16.05.1988
passed
by
Munsif
Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bijnor in
Criminal Case No. 1578 of 1986 is
quashed.
Discharge
application
dated
19.01.1988 and revision are allowed.
Revisionist be discharged from criminal
proceedings.

36. No order as to costs.

37. Let a copy of this order alongwith
lower court record be transmitted to the
trial court forthwith for compliance.
----------
(2021)08ILR A569
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2205 of 2020

Jagdish Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Abhishek Yadav, Tulsi Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 - Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Sections
110,161,164 - Section 319 - Revision -
Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence - The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3/4 - a man
with a criminal history is to be exposed to
the depredations of another criminal, with
the
State
being
absolved
of
its
responsibility to protect his life, merely
because he has a criminal history to his
credit - The State, in its obligation to
protect human life, cannot discriminate on
the ground of one facing the threat,
carries behind him a history of crime -
prosecutrix has to be protected in all
events, so long as the trial continues or a
real
and
potent
threat
perception
persists.(Para 8)

Application seeking a direction to further
investigate the case made before trial judge -
rejected - reasoning - Police, after investigation,
have submitted a charge-sheet in the case
against one of the accused - opinion of the Trial
Court - Investigating Officer exculpated the
other co-accused opposite party no. 3, and coaccused, against whom, offence of gang rape,
has been alleged by the prosecutrix - as would
appear from her statement under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 recorded
by the Magistrate. (Para - 3)

HELD:- The Trial Judge shall proceed to record
the testimony of the prosecutrix, the first
informant and her father, if the evidence of
these witnesses has already not been recorded.
Trial Judge shall proceed to consider in the first
instance and before proceeding with the trial
further, whether a case to summon the third
opposite party, in the exercise of powers under
Section 319 of the Code is made out or not.
Trial Judge shall proceed to consider framing of
the appropriate charge(s) against the accused in
accordance with law, before proceeding to trial.
After the stage of reframing/further framing of
charges, if any, is over, the Trial Court shall
proceed with the trial expeditiously. (Para - 16)
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Revision disposed of.(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

Heard Mr. Abhishek Yadav, learned
Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Vinod
Kant, the learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Shashi Shekhar
Tiwari, learned Additional Government
Advocate on behalf of the State of Uttar
Pradesh.

2. This revision has been preferred,
challenging an order dated 04.12.2020
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
(POCSO Act), Chandauli, in Misc. Case
No. 287 of 2020 (arising out of Case Crime
No. 73 of 2020) under Section 363 of the
Indian Penal Code, 18601, Police Station -
Balua, District - Chandauli.

3. It appears that the said case had
arisen on an application made by the first
informant, seeking a direction to the
Superintendent of Police, Chandauli to
undertake
further
investigation.
This
application has been made at a stage when
Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2020, arising from
the First Information Report giving rise to
the crime, is pending on the basis of
cognizance
taken
of
a
charge-sheet
submitted by the Investigating Officer,
charging opposite party no. 2 Sonu Kumar
Gaud alone of offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code
and Section 3/4 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
However,
the
Investigating
Officer
exculpated the other co-accused opposite
party no. 3, Satish Kumar Gaud and coaccused Sonu Kumar Gaud, against whom,
offence of gang rape, punishable under
Section 376-D of the Penal Code, has been
alleged by the prosecutrix, as would appear
from her statement under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
recorded by the Magistrate. The Trial
Judge,
before
whom
the
application
seeking a direction to further investigate
the case was made, has rejected it by means
of the impugned order, on the reasoning
that the Police, after investigation, have
submitted a charge-sheet in the case against
one of the accused. In the opinion of the
Trial Court, the Investigating Officer has
taken into consideration the statement of
the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the
Code, her additional statement also under
Section 161, her statement under Section
164, statement of the informant under
Section 161, besides the medico-legal
report and the school-leaving certificate,
both relating to the prosecutrix, while
submitting a charge-sheet against opposite
party no. 2 alone and exculpating opposite
party no. 3.

4. Before this Court, much was
contended on behalf of the revisionist to the
effect that the prosecutrix's statement under
Section 164, that clearly discloses a case of
gang rape against opposite party nos. 2 and
3, acting in concert, has been ignored by
the Police to extend undue favour to the
accused, particularly opposite party no. 3,
Satish Kumar Gaud. It was emphasized that
Satish Kumar Gaud was a member of the
Zila Panchayat and had political influence
that he has brought upon the Police to
exculpate him. It was also submitted on
behalf of the revisionist during the course
of hearing that the prosecutrix and her
family
members
were
threatened
by
opposite
party
no.
3
with
dire
consequences, in case they did not
withdraw from the prosecution. It was also
alleged during the course of hearing that
the revisionist was being threatened to
withdraw the present revision, else he
would face injury to his life and/or limb.
8 All. Jagdish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
The Police of Police Station - Balua,
District - Chandauli were also alleged to be
building up pressure upon the prosecutrix
to withdraw from prosecution of the case.

5. This Court, taking note of all these
facts,
ordered
impleadment
of
the
Superintendent of Police, Chandauli, the
Station House Officer, Police Station -
Balua, District - Chandauli, Satyendra
Yadav, and Investigating Officer, SubInspector Lallan Ram, on the revisionist's
application, to be impleaded as opposite
party nos. 4, 5 and 6. Thereafter, this Court
passed the following order on 20.01.2021 :

Impleadment
application
is
allowed in part.

Let the Superintendent of Police,
Chandauli, the Station House Officer,
Police Station Balua, Satendra Yadav and
the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector,
Lallan Ram Bind be impleaded as opposite
party nos. 4,5 and 6 during the course of
the day.

By the impugned order, the
revisionist, who is the complainant of the
crime and the father of the prosecutrix has
made
an
application
for
further
investigation which has been rejected vide
order dated 04.12.2020. It is urged before
the Court that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3,
who are accused in the crime, are extending
threats
to
the
complainant
and
the
prosecutrix
to
withdraw
from
the
prosecution else they would be eliminated.
On the other hand, it is pointed out that the
impugned
order,
declining
further
investigation so as to bring home the
complicity of Satish Kumar Gaud, opposite
party no. 3 has been made ignoring from
consideration
the
statement
of
the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and other material evidence in the
case diary. The offence, according to the
learned counsel for the revisionist, involves
gang rape which has not been taken
cognizance of. It is submitted further that
the impugned order passed by the learned
Special Judge, POCSO Act is bad because
he has ignored from consideration material
appearing against opposite party no. 3 on
ground that cognizance has already been
taken against the second opposite party for
the offences charged and, therefore, no
further investigation is possible.

A prima facie case is made out.

Admit.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 2
to 6 returnable on 28.01.2021.

Notice to the respondents shall be
caused to be served by all means of
communication which shall be caused to be
served by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandauli.

List in the additional cause list on
28.01.2021.

In the meanwhile, it shall be the
responsibility of the Superintendent of
Police, Chandauli to ensure that the
revisionist or the prosecutrix are not
harmed in life or limb or otherwise
threatened in any manner.

Let this order be communicated
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli
and
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Chandauli
by
the
Joint
Registrar
(compliance) today.

6. Notice was issued to opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 05.01.2021.
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Superintendent of Police, Chandauli
filed
his
personal
affidavit
dated
03.02.2021 in Court on 04.02.2021, which
was very disillusioning. He did not show
the required concern, which the case
merited. The material part of the S.P.'s
affidavit dated 03.02.2021 is extracted
below :

5. That it is relevant to mention
here that the above noted criminal revision
against the impugned order is arising out of
Case Crime No. 73 of 2020 Under Section
363 IPC, registered at Police Station
Baluwa, District Chandauli in which after
due investigation charge-sheet has been
submitted on 13.08.2020 upon which the
learned Court below has taken cognizance
on 17.08.2020. It may be added here after
cognizance taken by the Magistrate, the
Protest Application no. 287 of 2020 in Case
Crime No. 73 of 2020 has been filed by the
revisionist before court below which was
rejected by the learned Additional Session
Judge by vide impugned order dated
04.12.2020.

6. That in compliance of order
dated 20.01.2021 the deponent has made
deep inquiry regarding life and liberty of
revisionist or the prosecutrix during the
course of inquiry it came in the light that
the revisionist is working as IVth class
employees in the police department and at
present he is posted as E.O.W. (Economic
Offences Wing), District Varanasi office of
Superintendent of Police and prosecutrix is
living with her parents at Village Matiyara
Police Station Baluwa District Chandauli,
during the course of inquiry it is also found
that the father of victim is notified history
sheeter. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court a copy of history sheet of father of
prosecutrix is being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this
affidavit.

7. That the from the perusal of
order dated 28.01.2021 it appears that the
revisionist under taken before this Hon'ble
Court that he is threatened by Satish
Kumar Gaud asking him to withdraw the
present revision and prosecutrix by local
police of Police Staton Baiuwa District
Chandauli, which is without any basis and
prove, the present criminal revision filed
by
the
revisionist
challenging
the
impugned order is pending before this
Hon'ble Court for adjudication. on purely
question of law, The charge-sheet has
already been submitted in the present case
and matter is sub-judice before Trial
Court.

7. This Court proceeded to pass the
following order on 04.02.2021 :

A personal affidavit of the
Superintendent of Police, Chandauli has
been filed. He has stated amongst other
things in paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit
that the revisionist is posted in the
Economic Offences Wing in the police
department and at present police personnel
are deployed for the security of the
prosecutrix and her father at their house. It
is also said that this arrangement has been
made so that they may not come to any
harm.

This
Court
is
not
much
impressed with the personal affidavit filed
by
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Chandauli. It will be the duty of the
Superintendent of Police to ensure that no
harm comes to the victims of the crime or
her family at the hands of respondents or
anyone acting at their behest.
8 All. Jagdish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
573

A personal affidavit has been
filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. He has
detailed the criminal history of the victim's
father. The revisionist may file a rejoinder
to the said affidavit, which is virtually a
counter affidavit on behalf of respondent
no. 3, within ten days.

State's counter affidavit and any
further affidavit which respondent no.3
wishes to file shall be filed by the date next
fixed.

List this matter in the additional
cause list again on 22.02.2021.

8. A recall/modification application
dated 22.02.2021, supported by an affidavit
of one Prem Chandra, the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Chandauli was
filed, asking this Court to modify the
interim order dated 20.01.2021, by which
protection was provided to the prosecutrix
and her father. It was alleged that the
prosecutrix's father, Suresh Yadav, was
misusing the liberty of Police security and
was flaunting it in public to gain unfair
advantage. Together with this affidavit, a
criminal history of the prosecutrix's father
was attached, which has a detail of eight
cases. It must be recorded that three of
these are challan in security proceedings
under Section 110 of the Code. The others
are also mostly trivial offences and span in
time from the year 2001 to the year 2009.
There is neither any heinous offence
registered against the prosecutrix's father
nor one that is within the period of ten
years antedating the occurrence. Even if the
prosecutrix's father were a hardened
criminal, this Court fails to understand as to
how that would be relevant to deny police
protection to the prosecutrix or her father in
connection with a heinous offence, where
opposite party no. 2 is facing trial and
opposite party no. 3 is sought to be
arraigned. The prosecutrix and her father
claim to be receiving threats from the
accused to withdraw from the prosecution.
The prosecutrix and her father have to be
protected, irrespective of the fact whether
the prosecutrix's father has a criminal
history. It is, by no means, the law that a
man with a criminal history is to be
exposed to the depredations of another
criminal, with the State being absolved of
its responsibility to protect his life, merely
because he has a criminal history to his
credit. The State, in its obligation to protect
human life, cannot discriminate on the
ground of one facing the threat, carries
behind him a history of crime. That apart,
the prosecutrix has to be protected in all
events, so long as the trial continues or a
real and potent threat perception persists.

9. Later on, three counter affidavits
were filed - one on behalf of Satyendra
Yadav, the Station House Officer, Police
Station - Balua, District - Chandauli dated
09.03.2021, another also dated 09.03.2021
on behalf of Lallan Ram Bind, the
Investigating Officer of the case. Both
these affidavits have done not much credit
to explain the moot question why the
statement of the prosecutrix under Section
164 of the Code was ignored. The
affidavits
were
nothing
more
than
affirmations of their action by the Station
House Officer and the Investigating Officer
concerned. Another affidavit that has to be
taken note of is the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the State by Prem Chandra
Bind, the Additional Superintendent of
Police, Chandauli. Various parts of the
Case Diary have been referred to and
annexed to this affidavit, again to justify
that the prosecutrix's statement under
Section 164 of the Code is not of much
consequence and that the C.D.R. details
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relating to Satish Kumar Gaud, opposite
party no. 3, were conclusive about the fact
that his location close to the victim during
the
dates
between
19.06.2020
to
05.07.2020 is not established.

10. This Court must also take note of
a further personal affidavit filed by the
Superintendent of Police, Chandauli in
compliance with the order of this Court
dated 04.03.2021 passed during the hearing
of this revision. The following material
averments find place there :

2.
That,
after
studying
the
Statement of Prosecutrix recorded U/s 164
Cr.P.C, in the Case Diary, it is discernible
that the name of two persons namely Sonu
and Satish Kumar came in the light with
allegation of committing offence of rape
upon the Prosecutrix and after permission
granted by the then competent supervisory
Police Officer charge sheet was filed only
against the person Sonu Gaud.

3. That, it appears that the
investigating officer further proceeded
investigation after statement of Prosecutrix
recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C, but without
carefully evaluating the worth of statement
of prosecutrix against Satish Kumar and
accordingly
the
investigation
was
concluded. The Investigation Officer ought
to have verified the correctness and
genuineness of statement of Prosecutrix
recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. against Satish
Kumar with further corroborative, credible
and material evidence, which renders
possibility of some failure and slack-ness
appearing in the investigation.

4. That in view of above facts and
circumstances, show cause notice against
the Investigating Otficer has been issued,
calling for his explanation in writing. A
correct copy of Show Cause Notice dated
13.3.2021
is
hereby
annexed
as
ANNEXURE NO. 1 for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court

5. That, thereafter Investigating
Officer has been placed under suspension
contemplating
enquiry
proceeding
in
accordance with law for further course of
action. A correct copy of Suspension order
is
hereby
annexed
and
marked
as
ANNEXURE NO. 2 for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court.

11. What this Court fails to understand
is the fact that it might have been a strategy
with the Police to collect the C.D.R. details,
but, on that basis, to exculpate the accused
during the investigation, contrary to the
statement of the prosecutrix recorded before
the Magistrate under Section 164 of the
Code, virtually amounts to jumping fence
from
investigation
into
the
arena
of
adjudication. During the hearing of this case,
much was made on behalf of the State to say
that if any material were to surface against
opposite party no. 3, it would figure during
the prosecutrix's testimony in the dock. If a
case is disclosed against opposite party no. 3
and opposite party no. 2 involving gang rape,
the Court can well exercise its power under
Section 319 of the Code to summon the third
opposite party. Learned Counsel for the
revisionist has contended all through that
flaws in investigation cannot be remedied
later, during the hearing. The investigation
here has been one-sided, unfair and biased,
where material appearing against opposite
party nos. 2 and 3, showing a case of gang
rape, have been ignored by the Police, to put
in a challan against opposite party no. 2
alone, exculpating opposite party no. 3.

12. This Court has keenly considered
the matter and perused the record. There
8 All. Jagdish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575
are two facets of the case, as it now stands.
One is about the merits of the investigation,
where the revisionist says that opposite
party no. 3 has been wrongly exculpated
and opposite party no. 2 and 3 together
have been wrongly not charge-sheeted for
an offence of gang rape; the other is the
issue about the security of life and limb of
the prosecutrix, her father and the first
informant, who is the prosecutrix's uncle.
So far as the merits of the case are
concerned, gleaning through the Case
Diary and the stand taken by the Police
before this Court, this Court is convinced
that not much would come out of requiring
the Police to investigate further. The
statement of the prosecutrix is already a
part of the Case Diary and it is material on
which the Court can always act. More than
that, it is the evidence of the prosecutrix
during the trial that indeed is evidence
alone in the case. Whatever the Police have
collected
during
investigation
is
but
material, that could be galvanised into
evidence at the trial, depending the way
that material is affirmed by the testimony
of witnesses and other evidence led. After
all, the Police are no more than parties. It is
a criminal prosecution, and they cannot be
compelled to say something which they do
not wish to say. This, however, does not
mean that the Police can be given a
freehand to suppress material by doing an
unfair investigation. But here, whatever
material had to be collected, is there in the
form of the prosecutrix's statement under
Section 164 of the Code, recorded by a
Judicial Magistrate.

13. What is, therefore, necessary is
that the testimony of the prosecutrix, her
father and the first informant are all
recorded as promptly as possible by the
Trial Judge. After the testimony of these
three witnesses of fact has been recorded,
the Trial Court shall examine whether a
case to summon the third opposite party is
made out or not, in the exercise of its
powers under Section 319 of the Code. If
the third opposite party is summoned by the
Trial Court under Section 319 of the Code,
the Trial Court shall further consider
framing of appropriate charges against
opposite party nos. 2 and 3, including a
charge under Section 376D of the Penal
Code.

14. This Court must hasten to add that
it is not our adjudication that such a charge
should be framed; or even that the third
opposite party should be summoned. It is
for the Trial Court to decide, both upon the
matter of summoning the third opposite
party to stand his trial, in exercise of its
power under Section 319 of the Code and
further to decide upon what charges ought
to be framed, if the third opposite party is
summoned. This would be done by the
Trial Court without being influenced by
anything said in this judgment.

15. So far as the security of the
prosecutrix is concerned, this Court is of
opinion that the Superintendent of Police,
Chandauli
would
always
remain
responsible to ensure that the prosecutrix,
her father or the first informant do not
come to any harm during the trial or, in any
case, on account of testifying in Court the
way they do against anyone, including
opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The precise
manner in which the Superintendent of
Police, Chandauli chooses to ensure the
safety and security of life and limb of the
prosecutrix, her father and the first
informant is up to the Officer to decide.
But, any lapse that occurs in ensuring the
safety and security of the prosecutrix, the
informant or her father, that leads to injury
to the life or limb of any of them in
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
connection with the prosecution, would
render
the
Superintendent
of Police,
Chandauli personally answerable to this
Court.

16. In the result, this revision stands
disposed of in terms of the following orders
:

(i)
The
Trial
Judge
shall
proceed to record the testimony of the
prosecutrix, the first informant and her
father, if he is a witness cited by the
prosecution, within one month next, in
Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2020, State v.
Sonu Kumar Gaud, pending before the
Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)
Chandauli, if the evidence of these
witnesses has already not been recorded.

(ii) If the evidence of all these
witnesses has already been recorded or
comes to be recorded and concluded
hereinafter, the learned Trial Judge shall
proceed to consider in the first instance
and before proceeding with the trial
further, whether a case to summon the
third opposite party, Satish Kumar Gaud,
in the exercise of powers under Section
319 of the Code is made out or not.

(iii) If the third opposite party is
summoned to stand his trial along with
co-accused Sonu Kumar Gaud, the Trial
Judge shall proceed to consider framing
of the appropriate charge(s) against the
accused in accordance with law, before
proceeding to trial. After the stage of
reframing/further framing of charges, if
any, is over, the Trial Court shall proceed
with the trial expeditiously, fixing one
date every week and endeavour to
conclude the same within three months of
its commencement.

17. The Superintendent of Police,
Chandauli shall act to ensure the safety of
the prosecutrix, her father and the first
informant
in
the
manner
ordered
hereinabove.

18. Let this order be communicated to
the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(POCSO Act), Chandauli through the
learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli and the
Superintendent of Police, Chandauli by the
Registrar (Compliance)
----------
(2021)08ILR A576
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3380 of 2019

Ranjeet (Juvenile) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Alak Ranjan Mishra, Sri Amitabh Ranjan
Mishra, Mrs. Amrita Mishra, Sri Surendra
Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Constitution of India -
Article 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 394 & 411 - Revision - The
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - Section12, 18(1)(g),
Section 101 - appeal - ipse dixit - gravity
of
the
offence
is
not
relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to
the juvenile - maximum period for which a
juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever
form of detention, is three years, going by