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

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 250
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4388 of 2006
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40850
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application offence under section
147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34 read with
U.P. Criminal law Amendment Act S. 7informant and injured persons belonging
to Scheduled Cast-applicant, a very
powerful
man-offence
committed-in
order to establish supremacy-occurrence
took
place
broad
day
light-role
of
causing injury by rifle-two persons lost
their
life-several
injured-considering
gravity of case-without expressing any
opinions on merit-held-not entitled for
bail.

Held: Para 7

Considering the facts that the alleged
occurrence had taken place in broad day
light, F.I.R. was promptly lodged, role of
causing injury by rifle has been assigned
to the applicant, two persons have lost
their lives, several persons are injured,
the cause of death was due to fire arm
injury and there are injured witnesses to
support
the
prosecution
story,
the
gravity of offence is too much and other
facts and circumstances of the case and
submission made by both side, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the applicant is not entitled for
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is
refused.

## Text

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
1 All] Mohd. Feroj V. State of U.P. and another
251
of the punishment which can have an
adverse effect on them.

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.

4. The revisionist Mohd. Feroj is
directed to be released on bail on his
father Mohd. Hanif furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.50,000.00 and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar.
Father of the revisionist Mohd. Hanif is
directed to keep his son Mohd. Feroj
under his guardianship. He is further
directed to produce Mohd. Feroj before
Juvenile Justice Board once in a month.
He is further directed to keep watch over
his son Mohd. Feroj so that he may not
indulge any criminal activity in further.

With the aforesaid direction, this
revision
is
finally
allowed
at
the
admission stage itself.
---------
APPELLATION JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17764
of 2006

Awdhesh Singh
...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.
...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri V.P. Srivastava
Sri Ram Lal Singh
Sri Lav Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Braham Singh
Sri Susheel Kumar Tiwari
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application offence under section
147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34 read with
U.P. Criminal law Amendment Act S. 7informant and injured persons belonging
to Scheduled Cast-applicant, a very
powerful
man-offence
committed-in
order to establish supremacy-occurrence
took
place
broad
day
light-role
of
causing injury by rifle-two persons lost
their
life-several
injured-considering
gravity of case-without expressing any
opinions on merit-held-not entitled for
bail.

Held: Para 7

Considering the facts that the alleged
occurrence had taken place in broad day
light, F.I.R. was promptly lodged, role of
causing injury by rifle has been assigned
to the applicant, two persons have lost
their lives, several persons are injured,
the cause of death was due to fire arm
injury and there are injured witnesses to
support
the
prosecution
story,
the
gravity of offence is too much and other
facts and circumstances of the case and
submission made by both side, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the applicant is not entitled for
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is
refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This application has been filed by
the applicant Awdhesh Singh with the
prayer that he may be released on bail in
case crime no. 16 of 2006 under sections
147,148,149,307,302/34
I.P.C.
and
Section 3(2)(v) SC.C./S.T.(P.A) Act and
section
7
of
U.P.
Criminal
Law