# Raju and another Revisionists v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6445 of 2006
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raju-and-another-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40849
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Act
S-12-Bail
Application-applicant
a
juvenile-an
accused
of
selling
narcotic
drug-a
serious offence-The Juvenile Board as
well as the lower Appellate Court-over
sighted
the
very
purpose
of
the
enactment of the Act itself which cover
all developments of juvenile-Jail cannot
be a place where the delinquent juvenile
can be reared up-held-entitled for Bail.

Held para 3
The Lower Appellate Court also in an
unmindful manner has rejected the bail
prayer
of
the
revisionist.
I
have
considered the merits of the matter. In
my view, the revisionist deserves to be
released on bail.

## Text

1 All] Raju and another V. State of U.P. and another
249
Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others by
Hon'ble the Apex Court that where the
allegation made in the complaint are
patently
absurd
or
are
inherently
improbable so that no prudent person can
ever reach a conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the "accused or the discretion of the
Magistrate is based on no evidence. The
prayer for summoning the accused can be
rejected. In 1992 SC 1815 Punjab
National Bank v. Surendra Prasad
Sinha it has been held by Hon'ble the
Apex Court that relevant fact and
circumstances
should
be
considered
before issuing the process: Process issued
mechanically on the basis of complaint
filed as vendetta to harass persons
deserves to be quashed because judicial
process would not be an instrument of
oppression of needless harassment.

5. In this case where there is no
evidence that injury was caused and no
witness
supports
the
case
of
the
complaint, if the learned Magistrate has
rejected the application and under section
156
(3)
Cr.P.C
there
appears
no
jurisdictional error, illegality irregularity
in the impugned order. The revision is
dismissed at the admission stage.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6445 of 2006

Raju and another
...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another

...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey
Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi

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

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 397
(2)-Trail Court by exercising power
under section 311 Cr.P.C.- summoned
the witness for cross examination-for
just
decision-re-examination
P.W.
2
must-such order being interlocutoryrevision held-bar under section 397 (2)
Cr.P.C.

Case law relied:
1977 SCC (Crl.) 585

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi
holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar
Dubey,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists and the learned A.G.A.

Exercising power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. the Additional Sessions Judge,
F.T.C. No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T.
No.250 of 2006, State Vs. Raju and other,
under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Dankaru,
district Gautam Budh Nagar has resummoned the P.W.2 for further crossexamination vide his impugned order
dated 9.11.2006. In view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Amar Nath
And Others versus State of Haryana
and Another 1977 SCC (Cr.) 585, the
said order of summoning a witness is
nothing but an interlocutory order and a
revision against such an order is barred
under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Further the
trial court was of the opinion that for just
decision of the case reexamination of
P.W.2 is a must. This discretionary power
of the trial court should not be in any way
curtailed by this court while exercising its
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
revisional power specially when the
revision is not maintainable.

In this view of the matter, this
revision stands dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4388 of 2006

Mohd. Feroj

...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. and another

...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri M.A. Khan

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

Juvenile
Justice
Act
S-12-Bail
Application-applicant
a
juvenile-an
accused
of
selling
narcotic
drug-a
serious offence-The Juvenile Board as
well as the lower Appellate Court-over
sighted
the
very
purpose
of
the
enactment of the Act itself which cover
all developments of juvenile-Jail cannot
be a place where the delinquent juvenile
can be reared up-held-entitled for Bail.

Held para 3
The Lower Appellate Court also in an
unmindful manner has rejected the bail
prayer
of
the
revisionist.
I
have
considered the merits of the matter. In
my view, the revisionist deserves to be
released on bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A.
2. The revisionist is admittedly a
juvenile. His bail prayer by the Juvenile
Board has been rejected on 19/04/2006
with the observation that if the revisionist
will be released his physical, mental and
psychological condition is such that he is
likely to fall in bad company. The appeal
preferred
by
the
revisionist
being
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2006 was also
dismissed by Additional District and
Sessions Judge Court No. 1 Kanpur Nagar
vide his order dated 13/06/2006. The
aforesaid two orders are under challenge
in the instant revision. It is an admitted
fact that the applicant is a juvenile and
that he is an accused of selling a narcotic
drug. No doubt the offence is a serious
one but the Juvenile Board and the Lower
Appellate Court did not address itself to
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Keeping juveniles in custody is not the
law as the Juvenile Justice Act has been
enacted for an over all development of the
delinquent juveniles. Jail is not such a
place where a juvenile can be reared up in
an healthy atmosphere. Section 12,
therefore, mandates that before rejecting
the bails prayer of an juvenile some
tangible
cogent
material
unerringly
pointed out that juveniles likely to fall in a
bad company must be recommended. The
bail to a delinquent cannot be denied by
making casual observations as has been
done which rejecting the bail of the
present revisionist. The Juvenile Justice
Board has made a cursory objection that
the revisionist is likely to fall in a bad
company. The said observation was not
based on any tangible material at all.
Cursory observation without any material
before it is not expected from Juvenile
Board who should be sensitive to
juveniles as the mind of delinquent
juveniles
is
psychologically
very
unmatured and they are roved to hazards