# Jitendra Kumar Bind Revisionist (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 1000
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4186 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-kumar-bind-revisionist-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45899
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Bail plea - Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 - Section 12, 18(1)(g) - Code of
Criminal Procedure - Sections 161, 164 -
The gravity of the offence is not relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to
the juvenile (Para 16, 17)

Present bail plea arises out of case u/s 342,
323, 376D, 506 IPC and u/s 5/6 POSCO Act as
well as u/s 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act. It is observed that
the statements under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. are self-contradictory, which has been
overlooked by both the Courts below and
further the Courts have also not considered the
radiological age of the victim as per the medical
report. (Para 4, 15)

The maximum period for which a juvenile can
be incarcerated in whatever form of detention,
9 All. Jitendra Kumar Bind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1001
is three years, as per Section 18(1)(g) of the
Act. It is submitted that the revisionist has done
more than half of institutional incarceration.
(Para 9, 10)

B. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 12 -
Bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is
under the age of 16 years, is a matter of
course and it is only in the event that his
case
falls
under
one
or
the
other
disentitling categories mentioned in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act that bail may be refused.

The Court in the present case observes that
juvenile is clearly below 16 years of age and
does not fall into that special category of a
juvenile between the age of 16 and 18 years
whose case may be viewed differently, in case,
they are found to be of a mature mind and
persons well understanding the consequences of
their actions. (Para 6, 13, 14)

In this case, the juvenile, who is a young boy,
less than the age of 16 years, has no criminal
history. There is nothing said against the
juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation
Report that may show him to be a desperado or
misfit in the society. The two Courts below have
not indicated any reason for his disentitlement
to bail. Even if it be assumed that the offence
was committed in the manner alleged, it would
be rather strained logic to hold that release of
the juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of
justice being defeated. (Para 15)

C. Constitution of India: Article 21 - Overall
view of all the facts and circumstances of this
case, the nature of evidence, the period of
detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also in the absence
of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence and in
view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex
Court, this Court is of the view that the present
criminal revision may be allowed and the
revisionist may be released on bail. (Para 17)

Revision allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

## Text

1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Raghuraj, be released on bail in Case
Crime no.515 of 2018, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 304, 308 IPC, P.S.
Kotawali, District Ballia upon his father
furnishing a personal bond with two
solvent sureties of his relatives each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the
Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia subject to the
following conditions:

(i) that the natural guardian/
father Ikbal Ram @ Ekbar 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.

(ii) The revisionist and his father
Ikbal Ram @ Ekbar will report to the
District Probation Officer on the first
Monday
of
every
calendar
month
commencing with the first Monday of July,
2020 and if during any calendar month the
first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the
following working day.

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

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

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

(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.
----------
(2020)09ILR A1000
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4186 of 2019

Jitendra Kumar Bind ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava, Sri Bare Lal,
Sri Ajay Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, Sri Pavan
Kumar Mishra

A. Criminal Law - Bail plea - Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 - Section 12, 18(1)(g) - Code of
Criminal Procedure - Sections 161, 164 -
The gravity of the offence is not relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to
the juvenile (Para 16, 17)

Present bail plea arises out of case u/s 342,
323, 376D, 506 IPC and u/s 5/6 POSCO Act as
well as u/s 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act. It is observed that
the statements under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. are self-contradictory, which has been
overlooked by both the Courts below and
further the Courts have also not considered the
radiological age of the victim as per the medical
report. (Para 4, 15)

The maximum period for which a juvenile can
be incarcerated in whatever form of detention,
9 All. Jitendra Kumar Bind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1001
is three years, as per Section 18(1)(g) of the
Act. It is submitted that the revisionist has done
more than half of institutional incarceration.
(Para 9, 10)

B. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 12 -
Bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is
under the age of 16 years, is a matter of
course and it is only in the event that his
case
falls
under
one
or
the
other
disentitling categories mentioned in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act that bail may be refused.

The Court in the present case observes that
juvenile is clearly below 16 years of age and
does not fall into that special category of a
juvenile between the age of 16 and 18 years
whose case may be viewed differently, in case,
they are found to be of a mature mind and
persons well understanding the consequences of
their actions. (Para 6, 13, 14)

In this case, the juvenile, who is a young boy,
less than the age of 16 years, has no criminal
history. There is nothing said against the
juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation
Report that may show him to be a desperado or
misfit in the society. The two Courts below have
not indicated any reason for his disentitlement
to bail. Even if it be assumed that the offence
was committed in the manner alleged, it would
be rather strained logic to hold that release of
the juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of
justice being defeated. (Para 15)

C. Constitution of India: Article 21 - Overall
view of all the facts and circumstances of this
case, the nature of evidence, the period of
detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also in the absence
of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence and in
view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex
Court, this Court is of the view that the present
criminal revision may be allowed and the
revisionist may be released on bail. (Para 17)

Revision allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -
1. Kamal Vs St. of Har., (2004) 13 SCC 526 (Para
9, 17)

2. Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC 463
(Para 10, 17)

3. Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu Vs St. of U.P., 2010 (68)
ACC 616 (LB) (Para 16, 17)

4. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3
SCC 22 (Para 17)

Present revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 28.9.2019 passed
by Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad
dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2019
(Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P.).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 28.9.2019 passed
by Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad
dismissing Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2019
(Radhey Shyam versus State of U.P.), filed
under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(for short ''the Act') and affirming an order
of Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj dated
28.6.2019 refusing the bail plea to the
revisionist in Case No.71 of 2019 (State vs.
Jitendra Kumar Bind), arising out of Case
Crime No.243 of 2018, under Sections 342,
323, 376D, 506 IPC and under Section 5/6
POCSO Act as well as under Section 3(2) 5
SC/ST Act, Police Station Phoolpur,
District Prayagraj.

2. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava
assisted by Sri B. Lal, learned counsel for
the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State
and Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused
the record.

3. The prosecution case, as per the
version of the FIR, is that on 5.7.2018 at 10
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
p.m. when the grand-daughter of the
informant namely Km. Soni, who is aged
about 15 years, had gone in the field for
call of nature, the revisionist Jitendra
Kumar Bind along with another co-accused
came
there
and
closed
her
mouth.
Thereafter, they have taken her away at the
house of the revisionist where they closed
the door from outside. The revisionist was
present in the room and firstly he
committed
maarpeet
with
her
and
threatened to kill her and thereafter
removed her clothes and committed rape
upon her.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR has been lodged by
the Nana (grand-father) of the victim on
6.7.2018 at about 15.44 p.m. with regard to
the incident which took place on 5.7.2018.
In the FIR the age of the victim has been
shown to be minor aged about 15 years
whereas as per radiological report dated
7.7.2018 filed as Annexure-4 to the
affidavit, the victim is major aged about 18
years. As per supplementary medico legal
report also, the radiological age of the
victim is 18 years filed as Annexure-5 to
the affidavit. Thus, the victim was major on
the date of alleged occurrence. Learned
counsel further submits that there is a vast
contradiction
in
the
statement
under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated
that the revisionist often used to come to
her grand-father's house and he is well
known to her and family members. On
5.7.2018 at 10 p.m. when she came outside
for call of nature, the revisionist along with
another person to whom she did not know,
closed her mouth. Thereafter, they took her
away forcibly in a room where another
person closed the door from outside.
Firstly, the revisionist committed maarpeet
with her and threatened to kill her.
Thereafter, when she tried to resist, he tied
her hands and committed wrongful act with
her. On the other hand, in her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated
that when she had gone outside for call of
nature, two persons came from back side
and closed her mouth. Out of them she is
known to one person whose name is
Jitendra and he lives in front of her house.
She was caught by both the persons and
Jitendra took her in his house and after
taking her in a room, he tied her hands also.
Another person closed the door from
outside. When the victim tried to resist, the
revisionist committed maarpeet with her
and threatened to kill her and thereafter
removed her clothes and committed rape
upon her. The statements under Sections
161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are self-contradictory.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that the revisionist is well known to the
victim prior to the alleged incident and it
appears
that
there
was
consenting
relationship between the revisionist and the
victim.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is
juvenile and there is no apprehension of
reasoned ground for believing that the
release of the revisionist is likely to bring
him in association with any known
criminals or expose him to mental, physical
or psychological danger or his release
would defeat the ends of justice. He further
submits that except this the revisionist has
no previous criminal history. The father of
the revisionist is giving his undertaking that
after release of the revisionist on bail, he
will keep him under his custody and look
after him properly. Further, the revisionist
undertakes that he will not tamper the
9 All. Jitendra Kumar Bind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1003
evidence and he will always cooperate the
trial proceedings. There was no report
regarding any previous antecedents of
family or background of the revisionist.
There is no chance of revisionist's reindulgence to bring him into association
with known criminals.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that it is not in dispute that
the revisionist is a juvenile as he already
been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice
Board,
Prayagraj
vide
order
dated
12.4.2019. The revisionist was a juvenile
aged 15 years, 9 months and 16 days on the
date of occurrence. He was, thus, clearly
below 16 years of age. He is in jail since
7.1.2019 in connection with the present
crime and has completed more than half of
the sentence out of the maximum three
years institutional incarceration permissible
for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the
Act.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further
submits
that
thereafter
the
revisionist applied for bail before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj upon
which a report from the District Probation
Officer was called for. The bail application
was rejected vide order dated 28.6.2019,
being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred
an appeal under Section 101 of the Act,
which was also dismissed vide order dated
28.9.2019. Hence the present criminal
revision has been filed before this Hon'ble
Court mainly on the following amongst
other grounds:

(i) That the revisionist is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present
case due to rivalry/village partibandi.

(ii) That the revisionist is juvenile
and there is no apprehension of reasoned
ground for believing that the release of the
revisionist is likely to bring him in
association with any known criminals or
expose
him
to
mental,
physical
or
psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice.

(iii) That the revisionist has no
criminal history except the present case.

(iv) That the law has been laid
down by this Court as well as the Apex
Court that the seriousness of the offence is
no ground to reject the bail of the juvenile
and only three contingencies have been
provided to be considered at the time of
consideration of the bail application and
those are if the release is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal
or would expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice.

(v) That the father of the revisionist is
giving his undertaking that after release of the
revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his
custody and look after him properly.

(vi) That the revisionist undertakes
that he will not tamper the evidence and he will
always cooperate the trial proceedings.

(vii) That both the courts below
have committed gross illegality by rejecting
the revisionist's bail prayer after declaring
him juvenile.

(viii) That both the courts below
have given wrong findings without any
material available on record.

(ix) That there was no report
regarding any previous criminal antecedents of
the family or background of the revisionist.

(x) That there is no chance of
revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into
association with known criminals.

(xi) That the impugned orders
passed by the courts below are totally
arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

(xii) That the findings given by
the courts below are based on conjectures
and surmises.
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the revisionist have also been
placed
forth before
the
Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
revisionist that he is ready to cooperate
with the process of law and shall faithfully
make himself available before the court
whenever required and is also ready to
accept all the conditions which the Court
may deem fit to impose upon him. It has
also been pointed out that in the wake of
heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there
is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has pointed out that the revisionist has by
now done more than half of institutional
incarceration. The maximum period for
which a juvenile can be incarcerated in
whatever form of detention, is three years,
going by the provisions of Section 18(1)(g)
of the Act. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the revisionist has
placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the
judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants are
already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

11. Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri
Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 have filed their counter
affidavit and have opposed the revisionist's
case with the submission that the release of
the revisionist on bail would bring him into
9 All. Jitendra Kumar Bind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1005
association of some known criminals,
besides, exposing him to moral, physical
and psychological danger. It is submitted
that his release would defeat the ends of
justice, considering that he is involved in a
heinous offence.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist
thereafter filed the rejoinder affidavit and
has denied the averments made in the
counter affidavit and reiterated the grounds
taken in the revision.

13.

This
Court
has
carefully
considered the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the impugned orders.
The juvenile is clearly below 16 years of
age and does not fall into that special
category of a juvenile between the age of
16 and 18 years whose case may be viewed
differently, in case, they are found to be of
a
mature
mind
and
persons
well
understanding the consequences of their
actions. The provisions relating to bail for a
juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the
Act, which reads as under:

"(1) When any person, who is
apparently a child and is alleged to have
committed a bailable or non-bailable
offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
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 the supervision of a probation officer
or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall
not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical
or psychological danger or the person's
release would defeat the ends of justice,
and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that led
to such a decision.

(2) When such person having
been apprehended is not released on bail
under subsection (1) by the officer-incharge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home in such manner as may
be prescribed until the person can be
brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not
released on bail under sub-section (1) by
the Board, it shall make an order sending
him to an observation home or a place of
safety, as the case may be, for such period
during the pendency of the inquiry
regarding the person, as may be specified
in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with
law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail
order within seven days of the bail order,
such child shall be produced before the
Board for modification of the conditions of
bail."

14. A perusal of the said provision
show that bail for a juvenile, particularly,
one who is under the age of 16 years, is a
matter of course and it is only in the event
that his case falls under one or the other
disentitling categories mentioned in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act that bail may be refused. The merits
of the case against a juvenile acquire some
relevance under the last clause of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 that
speaks about the ends of justice being
defeated.
The
other
two
disentitling
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
categories are quite independent and have
to be evaluated with reference to the
circumstances of the juvenile. Those
circumstances are to be gathered from the
Social Investigation Report, the police
report and in whatever other manner
relevant facts enter the record.

15. What is of prime importance in
this case is that the juvenile, who is a
young boy, less than the age of 16 years,
has no criminal history. There is nothing
said against the juvenile, appearing from
the Social Investigation Report that may
show him to be a desperado or misfit in the
society. The two courts below have held the
juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his
case falling under each of the three
exceptions enumerated in the proviso to
sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no
reason has been indicated. That finding, in
both the orders impugned, is based on an
ipse dixit, in one case of the judge and in
the other of the Board. Even if it be
assumed that the offence was committed in
the manner alleged, it would be rather
strained logic to hold that release of the
juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of
justice being defeated. Both the courts
below have also overlooked the statement
of the victim recorded under Section 161
and 164 CrPC and further the courts below
have also not considered the radiological
age of the victim as per the medical report.

16. This Court in the case of Shiv
Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB) was pleased to observe
that the gravity of the offence is not
relevant consideration for refusing grant of
bail to the juvenile.

17. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also in the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence and in view of the larger
mandate
of
the Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India and the dictum of
Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh
vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3
SCC 22 and the view taken by the Apex
Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Shiv
Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.
(supra)., this Court is of the view that the
present criminal revision may be allowed
and the revisionist may be released on bail.

18. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 28.9.2019 passed
by Special Judge POCSO Act, Allahabad in
Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2019 (Radhey
Shyam versus State of U.P.) and the order
dated 28.6.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice
Board, Prayagraj in Case No.71 of 2019
(State vs. Jitendra Kumar Bind), arising out
of Case Crime No.243 of 2018, under
Sections 342, 323, 376D, 506 IPC and
under Section 5/6 POCSO Act as well as
under Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act Police
Station Phoolpur District Prayagraj, are
hereby set aside and reversed. The bail
application
of
the
revisionist
stands
allowed.

19. Let the revisionist, Jitendra
Kumar Bind through his natural guardian/
father Radhey Shyam be released on bail in
Case Crime No.243 of 2018, under
Sections 342, 323, 376D, 506 IPC and
under Section 5/6 POCSO Act as well as
under Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act Police
9 All. Shyamu (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1007
Station Phoolpur District Prayagraj upon
his father furnishing a personal bond with
two solvent sureties of his relatives each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj subject to
the following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian/
father, Radhey Shyam 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.

(ii) The revisionist and his father,
Radhey Shyam will report to the District
Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of
every calendar month commencing with the
first Wednesday of October, 2020 and if
during any calendar month the first
Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the
next following working day.

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

(iv) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or the certified copy issued by
the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

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

(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.

20. However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
court below is directed to make every
possible endeavour to conclude the trial of
the aforesaid case within a period of four
months from today without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
----------
(2020)09ILR A1007
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4743 of 2019

Shyamu (Juvenile) ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, Sri Atharva
Dixit, Sri Manish Tiwary

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

A. Criminal Law - Bail plea - Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 - Section 12, 18(1)(g), 101 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A,
304-B, 323 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:
Section 3/4.

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section
18(1)(g) - Right of a juvenile to be
released
on
bail
where
a
similarly
circumstanced adult offender had been
extended that liberty - The maximum
period for which a juvenile can be