# Manoj Kumar Verma and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 100
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2715 of 2003
- **Bench:** R.C. Deepak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-verma-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40230
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri Vivek Kumar Singh
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh
A.G.A.

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Criminal
revision-against the order passed under
section
437/439
refusing
bail-such
orders do not decide any question of law
or question of law and facts- revision
held- not maintainable.

Held- Para 4

The
orders
under
section
437/439
Cr.P.C. are not revisable orders. No
revision under the Cr.P.C. lies. They are
by nature interlocutory orders. These
orders do not decide any question of law
or mixed question of law or facts or any
issue in any proceeding under the Cr.P.C.
These orders simply refer to bail, such
application can be made at any stage,
during investigation, during commitment
proceeding or any time during trial,
however, they do not decide any fact in
issue in any inguiry or trial, therefore,
these orders can not be put even in the
category of an interlocutory orders. In
this view of matter no revision is
permissible to any accused under the
law.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
100
5. The Apex Court in Smt.
Nagawwa
Versus
Veeranna
Shivalingappa Nonjalagi and others,
reported in 1976 (13) ACC 224 SC has
laid down the principle that the enquiry
under section 202 Cr.P.C. is limited only
to ascertainment of truth or falsehood of
the allegations made in the complaint-
Firstly, on the material placed by the
complainant and secondly, for limited
purpose of finding out whether a prima
facie case for issuing of process is made
out or not.
6. On the facts of the present case,
there is a report to Senior Superintendent
of Police and the complainant has
examined herself and the two witnesses.
In her statement, she has supported the
allegations set forth in the complaint. The
contention of the complainant was also
supported by two witnesses, who had
witnessed the occurrence. The evidence
available on the record is sufficient to
make out a prima facie case against the
applicants.

7. Consequently, I find no merit in
the application and it is hereby dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.C. DEEPAK, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2715 of 2003

Prashant Tomar

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Krishna Capoor
Sri Jagdev Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh
A.G.A.

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Criminal
revision-against the order passed under
section
437/439
refusing
bail-such
orders do not decide any question of law
or question of law and facts- revision
held- not maintainable.

Held- Para 4

The
orders
under
section
437/439
Cr.P.C. are not revisable orders. No
revision under the Cr.P.C. lies. They are
by nature interlocutory orders. These
orders do not decide any question of law
or mixed question of law or facts or any
issue in any proceeding under the Cr.P.C.
These orders simply refer to bail, such
application can be made at any stage,
during investigation, during commitment
proceeding or any time during trial,
however, they do not decide any fact in
issue in any inguiry or trial, therefore,
these orders can not be put even in the
category of an interlocutory orders. In
this view of matter no revision is
permissible to any accused under the
law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.C. Deepak, J.)

1. This is a criminal revision against
the order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the
CJM Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application
of
Prashant
Tomar
(Revisionist) in Case Crime No. 39 of
2003,
under
section
302/34,
120
I.P.C.BPS GRP Baraut, district Baghpat
and the order of learned Sessions Judge
dated
25.7.2003
rejecting
his
bail
application no. 381 of 2003.

2. The facts which emerge from the
record are that Prashant Tomar is an
accused in case crime no. 39 of 2003,
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Manoj Kumar Verma and others V. State of U.P. and another
101
Under section 302/34, 120 B IPC, P.S.
G.R.P. Baraut, district Baghpat. He is
below 18 years alleged to be juvenile. He
moved an application for bail before the
C.J.M. The C.J.M. rejected his bail
application. He also filed an application
for bail before the Sessions Judge
concerned but the same was also rejected.
The above named accused presented a
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
13919 of 2003, under section 439 Cr.P.C.
before Hon'ble Court and the said bail
application
was
also
dismissed
as
withdrawn for filing the present revision.

3. I have heard Sri Krishana Capoor,
learned counsel assisted by Sri Jagdev
Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist,
Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the
O.P.
No.
2,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate and perused the
entire record.

4. The orders under section 437/439
Cr.P.C. are not revisable orders. No
revision under the Cr.P.C. lies. They are
by nature interlocutory orders. These
orders do not decide any question of law
or mixed question of law or facts or any
issue in any proceeding under the Cr.P.C.
These orders simply refer to bail, such
application can be made at any stage,
during investigation, during commitment
proceeding or any time during trial,
however, they do not decide any fact in
issue in any inguiry or trial, therefore,
these orders can not be put even in the
category of an interlocutory orders. In this
view of matter no revision is permissible
to any accused under the law.

5. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2000 provides
for an appeal if the prayer of a delinquent
is refused by the Board or the competent
authority, though it is that even after 2
and 1⁄2 years since the enforcement of the
aforesaid Act the government of this State
has not constituted a Board, hence the
applicant certainly is denied of his right to
move such Board for determination of his
juvenile status yet this court however, can
not take upon itself the obligation of
Board. Under the Code of Criminal
Procedure a person can be treated a minor
if he is 16 years or below this is provided
under section 437 Cr.P.C. The added
benefits
to
the
applicant
in
the
circumstance of the raised age by 2 years
of
the
juvenile
justice
(Care
and
Protection of Children Act 2000) is in the
circumstance enumerated above is not
available to him due to non constitution of
Board. In view of the matter since the
revision is not maintenance I am not
entitled to grant any benefit under the said
Act to the applicant. He has a remedy by
way of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in
this Court. He had earlier filed a bail
application in this Hon'ble Court but got
the same dismissed as withdrawn just to
file the present revision. The advice in my
opinion was wholly ill-conceived.

6. The remedy is still open to the
applicant under section 439 Cr.P.C. the
revision is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33984 of 2003

Mohd. Atique Ansari

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents