# Ravi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 663
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-05-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3312 of 2013
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43269
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. Section 401-Criminal Revisionagainst order passed by Session Judgeaffirming
order
by
Juvenile
Justice
Board-on ground if released on bail-shall
cause moral, psychological safety of
applicant-damaged
without
consideration of under taking given by
mother-held-rider
contained
under
section 12(1) not applicable-prayer for
bail of delinquent minor-liable to allow.
Held: Para-23
At the cost of repetition it can be
summerized that there is no adverse
report or material that minor cannot be
improved under guardianship of his
mother. Even the report of the District
Probation Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar is
not supported by any material as to how
minor will fall in company of bad
elements
if
released
on
bail.
The
observation of the District Probation
Officer in absence of any supporting
material
becomes
bald
and
vague.
Consequently, the same is to be ignored
in a situation when mother of the
delinquent juvenile promises to work for
improvement of her son.
Case Law discussed:
2009 Cr.L.J. 2002; 2006 (4) ALJ 353; 2007
Cr.L.J. 612.

## Text

2 All] Ravi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663
see no reason to place a narrow interpretation
on Section 389(1) of the Code not to extend
it to an order of conviction, although that
issue in the instant case recedes to the
background because High Courts can
exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code if the power was not to be
found in Section 389(1) of the Code."
12. This power of the appellate court
under Section 389(1) of the Code was
specifically adverted to in the decision of
the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas
(supra) while holding provisions of
Section 8(4) of the Representation of the
People Act as ultra vires. In fact, after
referring to the judgment in Ravikant S.
Patil Vs. Sarvabhouma S Bagali7, the
Supreme Court held as follows:
"...Therefore,
the
disqualification
under sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of
Section 8 of the Act will not operate from
the date of order of stay of conviction
passed by the appellate court under
Section 389 of the Code or the High Court
under
Section
482
of
the
Code."
(emphasis supplied)
13.
Thus,
it
is
clear
that
notwithstanding the declaration of Section
8(4) of the Act as ultra vires, the Supreme
Court has protected the consequence of the
exercise of the power contained in Section
389(1) of the Code so that where the
appellate court in the exercise of the power
stays the conviction, the disqualification
which would otherwise stand attracted will
not operate from the date on which the
conviction has been stayed.
14.
The reliance which has been
placed on behalf of the petitioners upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in B.R.
Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another8,
would not advance the case any further. In
that case before the Constitution Bench, there
was a conviction under Section 120-B of the
Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c),
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and of offences under
Section 409 of the Penal Code. The Madras
High Court while suspending the sentence of
imprisonment, dismissed the petition seeking
a stay of the conviction. The Supreme Court
held that the suspension of the execution of
the sentence consequently did not remove the
disqualification. B.R. Kapur's case was
therefore one where there was no stay of the
conviction but only a suspension of the
sentence of imprisonment.
15. For these reasons and upon
careful consideration of the submissions
which have been urged on behalf of the
petitioners, we find no merit in the writ
petition. We hence also see no reason to
accede to the prayer of the petitioner in
person to refer the case to a larger bench.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
Criminal Revision No. 3312 of 2013
Ravi
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ravindra Sharma, Sri A.C. Srivastava,
Sri A.P. Singh Raghav, Sri Saurabh Gour,
Sri Sushil Shukla, Sri A.B.L. Gaur.
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Gaurav Kakkar.
664
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. Section 401-Criminal Revisionagainst order passed by Session Judgeaffirming
order
by
Juvenile
Justice
Board-on ground if released on bail-shall
cause moral, psychological safety of
applicant-damaged
without
consideration of under taking given by
mother-held-rider
contained
under
section 12(1) not applicable-prayer for
bail of delinquent minor-liable to allow.
Held: Para-23
At the cost of repetition it can be
summerized that there is no adverse
report or material that minor cannot be
improved under guardianship of his
mother. Even the report of the District
Probation Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar is
not supported by any material as to how
minor will fall in company of bad
elements
if
released
on
bail.
The
observation of the District Probation
Officer in absence of any supporting
material
becomes
bald
and
vague.
Consequently, the same is to be ignored
in a situation when mother of the
delinquent juvenile promises to work for
improvement of her son.
Case Law discussed:
2009 Cr.L.J. 2002; 2006 (4) ALJ 353; 2007
Cr.L.J. 612.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
the learned AGA for the State.
2. By means of the instant revision,
the revisionist Kusum mother/natural
guardian wife of Jatanvir has sought bail
of her minor son Ravi in Case Crime
No.184 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal
Law Amendment Act, Police Station
Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar,
with the prayer that the impugned
judgment and order dated 16.11.2013
passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Gautam Budh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal
No.79 of 2013, Ravi Vs. State of U.P.
affirming the order dated 11.10.2013
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Gautam Budh Nagar, be set aside and the
application moved for bail of delinquent
minor be allowed.
3. The relevant facts of this case in a
nutshell are that the first information
report was lodged on 24.04.2013 at 19:30
hours, at Police Station Dadari, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, at the instance of
the Phuttan Singh-opposite party no.2
whereupon the allegations were made
against the delinquent juvenile Ravi and
others alleging the commission of crime
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302,
307
I.P.C.
and
7
Criminal
Law
Amendment
Act.
The
matter
was
investigated into and after completion of
the investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the delinquent juvenile.
4. During course of the proceedings,
an application was moved on behalf of the
revisionist that Ravi be declared to be a
juvenile as he was less than 18 years of
age on the date of the incident whereupon
after consideration of the matter, the
Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh
Nagar, declared juvenile vide order dated
18.09.2013.
5. Thereafter, an application for bail
was moved by the revisionist before the
Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime
No.184 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal
Law Amendment Act. The Juvenile
Justice Board, after considering the case,
rejected the bail application vide order
dated 11.10.2013 on the ground that in
2 All] Ravi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
665
case the juvenile is released on bail, his
release would have adverse impact upon
him on physical, moral and psychological
side.
6.
Feeling aggrieved by the bail
rejection order dated 11.10.2013, the
revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No.79 of
2013 before the appellate court, whereupon,
after consideration of the appeal, the
appellate court dismissed the appeal vide
judgment and order dated 16.11.2013
affirming the order dated 11.10.2013 passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh
Nagar. Hence this revision.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the parameters required to be
considered for granting or not granting the
bail to the delinquent minor are to be read in
context to the mandate contained under
Section 12 of the Act, and the gravity of the
offence will not be a guiding factor while
considering the bail application of the
delinquent juvenile.
8. Learned AGA has opposed the
prayer so made and has submitted that the
learned Sessions Judge was basically
guided by the material on record
particularly by the fact that in case the
delinquent minor is released on bail there
is likelihood of his repeating the offence,
which under the circumstances, was
justified conclusion and no interference is
required by this Court.
9. Considered the above submissions
and also perused the orders impugned in
the instant revision.
10.
In
view of above rival
submissions the moot point involved in this
revision for adjudication relates to the fact
as to whether the bail to the delinquent
juvenile in conflict with law will have to be
considered on the strength of the merits of
the case, or on gravity of offence or on the
parameters as laid down under Section 12
of the Act.
11. Before dealing with the matter, it
would be appropriate to take into account
Section 12 of the Act which is extracted
hereinunder:
"12. Bail of juvenile.-(1) When any
person accused of a bailable or nonbailable
offence,
and
apparently
a
juvenile, is arrested or detained or
appears or is 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 1[or placed under the 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
association 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
sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge 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."
666
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. The above law as contained
under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the
Act categorizes a situation when bail to a
delinquent juvenile can be refused.
13. In so far as the mandate of the
aforesaid Section 12 of the Act relating to
the grant of bail to a delinquent juvenile is
concerned,......the only exception given
for rejecting a bail stipulates to the extent
that he shall not be so released if there
appears reasonable grounds for believing
that the release 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.
14. In view of the mandate
aforesaid, it is obvious that if the
aforesaid conditions are existing and there
is reasonable likelihood of minor coming
into association with any known criminal
or he is likely to be exposed to moral,
physical or psychological danger or his
release would defeat the ends of justice,
then the bail to the delinquent juvenile in
conflict with law will not be allowed.
15. Even as per settled position of
law, the merits/gravity of the offence will
not be the sole guiding factor for disposal
of the bail application of the delinquent
juvenile in conflict with law. It is true that
the first information report has been
lodged against the revisionist under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307
I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act but gravity of the offence loses
significance in view of the paragraph
nos.4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in
support of the supplementary affidavit to
the instant revision, wherein, it has been
specifically stated that the mother of the
juvenile is willing to reform her child.
This positively indicates that she is ready
to take custody of her son with a will to
improve his life.
16. However, it has been opined by
the District Probation Officer that if the
delinquent juvenile is released on bail,
possibility of the delinquent juvenile
falling into company with the known
criminal or there being physical, moral or
psychological danger to the safety of the
delinquent juvenile cannot be ruled out.
But there is total absence of any
supporting
material
regarding
above
observation as to why such specific
opinion has been formed by the District
Probation Officer without there being any
supporting material giving rise to the
possibility of the minor falling into
company with the known criminal or
there
being
physical,
moral
or
psychological danger to the minor or to
defeat the ends of justice. In view of
above backdrop of the facts, it can be
conveniently observed that the bail
application of the minor cannot be
opposed simplicitor on the ground of
gravity of the offence particularly when
parents/guardian
of
the
delinquent
juvenile in conflict with law are ready to
do reformative act on their part for
upliftment of their child. Consequently,
the
rider/exception
contained
under
Section 12 (1) is not applicable on
account of want of supporting material.
17. So far as the report of the
District Probation Officer is concerned, I
pored over the same. It indicates that the
parents of the juvenile exercise lesser
supervision over the juvenile and in
absence of proper care and in the event of
his release on bail, there is possibility of
juvenile falling into association with the
known criminal or anti social elements.
2 All] Ravi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
667
However, the observation so made is not
supported by any relevant material on
record and mere hypothetical equation
will not, ipso facto, term bald finding into
certainty and this finding cannot be acted
upon by this Court, as such any finding
recorded by the District Probation Officer
is pre-supposed to contain at least some
relevant and cogent material so that the
Court may take notice of the same and
may analyze the material so placed on
record as to whether the juvenile, if
released on bail, will reasonably fall into
company with known criminal and would
be adverse to his physical, moral and
psychological interest and upliftment.
Therefore, the report of the District
Probation Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, is
liable to be discarded for the reasons
aforesaid.
18. The Juvenile Justice Board,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
completely
overlooked this particular aspect of the
case, while rejecting the bail application.
Even learned Sessions Judge
while
deciding Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2013
was very much influenced by the gravity
of the offence and did not take into
account the fact that the parents of the
minor are willing to reform their child and
there is nothing on record which may
reflect that the mandate as laid down
under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the
Act will be violated, in case the
delinquent minor is released on bail. In
absence of any such clear cut finding
based upon sufficient supporting material
that the release of the delinquent juvenile
will be in violation of the conditions
contained under Section 12 (1) of the Act,
it would not be proper to give primacy to
gravity of the offence alone. The pertinent
point is whether the release would bring
the minor into association with any
known criminal or will put him into
physical, psychological or moral danger
or it would defeat the ends of justice. In
that perspective, it was incumbent upon
the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh
Nagar to have taken into consideration the
aforesaid mandate as contained under
sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.
Even the report of the District Probation
Officer admittedly lacks any relevant and
supporting material, which may, indicate
any reasonable possibility that in case
juvenile is released on bail the ends of
justice would be defeated.
19. Learned counsel for the
revisionist
submits
that
the
natural
guardian Kusum on behalf of the
delinquent minor undertakes to exercise
the complete control over the delinquent
and will not bring him into association
with any know criminal or will not put
him in such situation that will put the
minor
into
physical,
mental
or
psychological danger and the delinquent
will not repeat the offence alleged against
him and he would be reformed.
20. In the case of A Juvenile v. State
of Orissa: 2009 Cr.L.J. 2002 it has been
held:-
"7.
A
close
reading
of
the
aforementioned provision shows that it
has been mandated upon the Court to
release a person who is apparently a
juvenile on bail with or without surety,
howsoever heinous the crime may be and
whatever the legal or other restrictions
containing in the Cr. P. C. or any other
law may be. The only restriction is that if
there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that his release is likely to bring
him into association with any known
criminal or expose him to any moral,
668
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
physical or psychological danger or his
release would defeat the ends of justice,
he shall not be so released."
21. In the case Sanjay Chaurasia v.
State of U. P. and another:2006 (4) ALJ
353 it has been laid down by this court as
under:-
"10. In case of the refusal of the bail,
some reasonable grounds for believing
above-mentioned exceptions must be
brought before the Courts concerned by
the prosecution but in the present case, no
such ground for believing any of the
above-mentioned exceptions has been
brought by the prosecution before the
Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate
Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the
appeal only on the presumption that due
to commission of this offence, the father
and other relatives of other kidnapped
boy had developed enmity with the
revisionist, that is why in case of his
release, the physical and mental life of the
revisionist will be in danger and his
release will defeat the ends of justice but
substantial
to
this
presumption
no
material has been brought before the
Appellate Court and the same has not
been discussed and only on the basis of
the presumption, Juvenile Justice Board
has refused the Bail of the revisionist
which is in the present case is unjustified
and against the spirit of the Act."
22. In the case of Ravi-Ul-Islam v.
State (NCT, Delhi): 2007 Cr.L.J. 612 it
has been held as under:-
"6.
Looking
at
the
Social
Investigation Report, it is difficult to come
to the conclusion that the release of the
juvenile would bring him into association
of any known criminal or expose him to
any physical or moral danger or his
release would defeat the ends of justice.
Accordingly, in view of the specific
provisions of Section 12 of the said Act,
the petitioner would be clearly entitled to
be released on bail."
23. At the cost of repetition it can be
summerized that there is no adverse report
or material that minor cannot be improved
under guardianship of his mother. Even
the report of the District Probation
Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar is not
supported by any material as to how
minor will fall in company of bad
elements if
released
on
bail. The
observation of the District Probation
Officer in absence of any supporting
material
becomes
bald
and
vague.
Consequently, the same is to be ignored in
a situation when mother of the delinquent
juvenile
promises
to
work
for
improvement of her son.
24. In view of the above, the prayer
for bail made on behalf of the delinquent
minor is liable to be allowed.
25.
Consequently,
the
order
impugned dated 11.10.2013 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh
Nagar on the bail application of the
delinquent juvenile in conflict with law
and the impugned judgment and order
dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, in
Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2013 are
hereby set aside and the prayer made for
grant of bail to the delinquent juvenile
through his mother who is natural
guardian Kusum wife of Jatanvir is
allowed.
26. Let the revisionist Ravi through
his natural guardian/mother be released
2 All] Nafeesa Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
669
on bail in Case Crime No.184 of 2013
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302,
307
I.P.C.
and
7
Criminal
Law
Amendment Act, Police Station Dadari,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, on his
mother Kusum furnishing a personal bond
with two solvent sureties of his relatives
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam
Budh Nagar with an undertaking that in
case the delinquent juvenile is released on
bail and is given in her custody she will
not create any situation which will bring
the delinquent juvenile into association
with any known criminal or expose to him
moral, physical and psychological danger
or any situation when the delinquent
juvenile may repeat the offence in
question
and
she
will
work
for
improvement of the delinquent juvenile.
27. Accordingly, the instant revision
is allowed.
28. Let a copy of this order be
certified to the Juvenile Justice Board,
Gautam Budh Nagar, at the earliest.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J.
THE HON'BLE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, J.
Misc. Bench No. 3758 of 2015
Nafeesa
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.K. Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-seeking
direction-to
the
Magistrate-to record her statements under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.-as earlier statements
based upon pressure of her husband-held-if
individual permitted to approach directlyvery purpose of investigate frustrated-sole
domine of investigation agency-no such
direction
required-even
otherwise
petitioner will get opportunity to give
statements as prosecution witness before
Trail Court-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-13, 15, 19
13.
In the opinion of this Court,
investigation is a searching enquiry for
ascertaining facts; detailed or careful
examination. Such Investigation is to be
conducted by an investigating agency. In
case persons individually are permitted to
create
"evidence
in
the
process
of
investigation", the process of investigation
would be interfered.
15. Considering the above it becomes
illusory and apparent that only a police
officer or an investigator can sponsor a
witness to a Magistrate for recording of
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
19. The petitioner would have the option
to give statement in court when she is
produced as a prosecution witness. It
would be for the Trial Court to consider
the statement (s) of the prosecutrix and
conclude whether offence has been
committed or not.
Case Law discussed:
(2000) 1 SCC 272.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Lamba, J.)
1. The question raised by way of this
petition is as to whether a witness, of his
own has the right to approach a
Magistrate to record his statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.; and whether such
Magistrate is under a legal obligation to
record the statement of such witness
under
Section
164
Cr.P.C.,
when