# Sanju @ Gulfu (Minor) Revisionist (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4551 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanju-gulfu-minor-revisionist-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47082
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 12 - Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law -Section 101 - Appeal - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A, 304B,
Dowry prohibition Act,1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
gravity of the offence is not relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to
the juvenile - Once the co-accused has
been admitted to bail, who is adult, there
seems no justification to additionally test
the case of the revisionist with reference
to the requirements of the proviso to sub
Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.-
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.
(Para - 14,15,16 )
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Daughter of the informant - set on fire by tying
her with the cot on account of non-fulfilment of
rupees one lac as dowry - died during
treatment
on
7.9.2018
-
application
by
revisionist (juvenile) for bail before Juvenile
Justice Board - board refused bail - criminal
appeal before Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge POCSO Act - affirmed order of board -
hence present criminal revision .

HELD:- No distinguishing feature from the case
of the said co-accused, who is adult offender
circumstanced identically as the revisionist. No
justification to hold the revisionist not entitled to
the liberty of bail. Revisionist has by now done
more than half of institutional incarceration.
Both the courts below have passed the
impugned judgment and orders in cursory
manner without placing due reliance on the
report submitted by the District Probation
Officer . Impugned orders cannot be sustained
and are liable to be set aside and reversed.
(Para - 16)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Sanju @ Gulfu (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
251

(iv) If date of birth certificate is
not available or is disbelieved if found to
be
forged
and
fabricated
after
the
adjudication and considering the evidence
and following the procedure for holding the
document as forged and fabricated.

(v) Resort can be taken to the
birth certificate given by the corporation or
a municipal authority.

(vi) If the said birth certificate
given by the corporation or a municipal
authority is not available or is held to be
forged and fabricated and not worthy of
reliance after conducting the enquiry on the
basis of evidences adduced, resort can be
taken to Clause 12 (3) (b) of the Rules
2007.

45. In view of the discussions and the
case laws referred to above, I am of the
firm view that Board has committed error
in determining the Juviniles claim by
taking recourse to Rules of 2004 and has
erred in not placing reliance on the High
School Certificate, which is on record.
Even otherwise also, the reasoning given
by the Board in rejecting the claim of
juvenility is wholly arbitrary.

46. In view thereof, the revision
deserves to be allowed. The impugned
order dated 4.7.2019 passed by the Special
Judge (POCSO Act/Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar in
Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2018 and the
impugned order dated 16.11.2018 passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur
Nagar in Misc. Case No. 6500036 of 2014,
Case Crime No. 213 of 2013, under
Sections 302, 201, 364-A IPC, Police
Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur
Nagar are set aside and the revisionist is
declared juvenile on the date of the
commission of the alleged offence in
view of his age being 21.4.1996 as
indicated in the High School Certificate.
----------
(2021)07ILR A251
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4551 of 2019

Sanju @ Gulfu (Minor)
 ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, Sri Kartikey
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sri
Shanker Lal

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 12 - Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law -Section 101 - Appeal - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A, 304B,
Dowry prohibition Act,1961 - Section 3⁄4 -
gravity of the offence is not relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to
the juvenile - Once the co-accused has
been admitted to bail, who is adult, there
seems no justification to additionally test
the case of the revisionist with reference
to the requirements of the proviso to sub
Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.-
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.
(Para - 14,15,16 )
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Daughter of the informant - set on fire by tying
her with the cot on account of non-fulfilment of
rupees one lac as dowry - died during
treatment
on
7.9.2018
-
application
by
revisionist (juvenile) for bail before Juvenile
Justice Board - board refused bail - criminal
appeal before Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge POCSO Act - affirmed order of board -
hence present criminal revision .

HELD:- No distinguishing feature from the case
of the said co-accused, who is adult offender
circumstanced identically as the revisionist. No
justification to hold the revisionist not entitled to
the liberty of bail. Revisionist has by now done
more than half of institutional incarceration.
Both the courts below have passed the
impugned judgment and orders in cursory
manner without placing due reliance on the
report submitted by the District Probation
Officer . Impugned orders cannot be sustained
and are liable to be set aside and reversed.
(Para - 16)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526

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

3. Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2018 (7) ADJ 864

4. Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs St. of U.P., 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB)

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

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

1. This revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 26.10.2019
passed
by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge
POCSO
Act,
Kaushambi dismissing Criminal Appeal
No.35 of 2019 (versus State of UP) filed
under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming the
order dated 30.7.2019 passed by Juvenile
Justice Board, Kaushambi refusing the bail
plea to the revisionist in Bail Application
No.22 of 2019 under Section 498A, 304B
IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Puramufti District Kaushambi.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, as per the
version of the FIR, is that the daughter of
the informant namely Ranjana was married
to Santosh son of Bachcha and on 1.9.2018
she was set on fire by tying her with the cot
on account of non-fulfilment of rupees one
lac as dowry and thereafter during
treatment she died on 7.9.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that general role has been
assigned to the revisionist and his family
members. No specific role has been
assigned to the revisionist.

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 cousin brother 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
7 All. Sanju @ Gulfu (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
253
properly. Further, the revisionist undertakes
that he will not tamper the 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
re-indulgence 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 has already been
declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board,
Kaushambi vide order dated 2.7.2019. The
revisionist was a juvenile aged about 17 years
on the date of occurrence. He is in jail since
14.11.2018 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. It
is submitted with much emphasis that coaccused Bachcha @ Bacha Nishad, who is
adult and similarly circumstanced as the
revisionist, has been admitted to bail by this
Court vide order dated 17.4.2019 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15869
of 2019. It is argued that the revisionist being
a minor, cannot be held in institutional
incarceration any further once co-accused,
similarly circumstanced, has been admitted to
bail. Further submission is that the case of the
revisionist is not on worse footing than that of
the co-accused, therefore on principles of
parity also the revisionist be released on bail.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further
submits
that
thereafter
the
revisionist applied for bail before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi upon
which a report from the District Probation
Officer was called for. The bail application
was rejected vide order dated 30.7.2019,
being
aggrieved,
the
revisionist
preferred an appeal under Section 101 of
the Act, which was also dismissed vide
order dated 26.10.2019. Hence the present
criminal revision has been filed before this
Hon'ble Court mainly on the following
amongst other grounds:

(i) That the bail application of the
revisionist was rejected by the court below
in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.

(ii) That the revisionist, who is
juvenile, is wholly innocent and has been
falsely implicated by the first informant in
the present case.

(iii) That the courts below have
not appreciated the report of the District
Probation Officer in its right perspective.

(iv) That the impugned judgment
and orders passed by the learned courts
below are apparently illegal, contrary to
law and based on erroneous assumption of
facts and law.

(v) That there was absolutely no
material on record to hold that the release
of the Juvenile would likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal
or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts
below have illegally, arbitrary and on
surmises refused the bail of juvenile.

(vi) That the courts have erred in
law in not considering the true import of
Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the
impugned orders passed by the courts
below suffer from manifest error of law
apparent on the face of record.

(vii) That the courts below have
acted quite illegally and with material
irregularity in not properly considering the
case of juvenile in proper and correct
perspective which makes the impugned
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders passed by the courts below non est
and bad in law.

(viii) That bare perusal of the
impugned orders demonstrate that the same
have been passed on flimsy grounds which
have occasioned gross miscarriage of
justice.

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 further argued that the revisionist has
already
undergone
half
of
the
imprisonment/institutional
incarceration
and 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 AGA and learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 have opposed
the revisionist's case with the submission
7 All. Sanju @ Gulfu (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
255
that the release of the revisionist on bail
would bring him into 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 has reiterated the grounds
mentioned in the revision.

13. This Court has carefully considered
the rival submissions of the parties and
perused the impugned orders. The juvenile is
clearly about 17 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-in-charge 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. This Court has, in particular,
looked into the role of the various accused
and finds that the aforesaid co-accused who
has already been granted bail by this Court,
and the revisionist have identical role. Once
the aforesaid co-accused has been admitted
to bail, who is adult, there seems no
justification to additionally test the case of
the revisionist with reference to the
requirements of the proviso to sub Section
(1) of Section 12 of the Act. In this
connection, I had occasion to consider the
question about the right of a juvenile to be
released
on
bail
where
a
similarly
circumstanced adult offender had been
extended that liberty. In the case of
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P.
and others, [2018 (7) ADJ 864], the High
Court was pleased to observe as under:

"10. The matter can be looked at
from
another
vantage.
In
case
the
revisionist were an adult and stood
charged of the offence that he faces with a
weak circumstantial evidence of last seen
and confession to the police, in all
probability, it would have entitled him to
bail pending trial. If on the kind of evidence
forthcoming an adult would be entitled to
bail, denying bail to a child in conflict with
law may be denying the juvenile/ child in
conflict with law the equal protection of
laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution.

11. The rule in Section 12(1) of
the Act is in favour of bail always to a
juvenile/ child in conflict with law except
when the case falls into one or the other
categories denial contemplated by the
proviso. It is not the rule about bail in
Section 12 of the Act that in case a child in
conflict with law is brought before the
Board or Court, his case is not to be seen
on merits prima facie about his complicity
at all for the purpose granting him bail;
and all that has been done is to see if his
case falls is one or the other exceptions,
where he can be denied bail. The rule in
Section 12 sanctioning bail universally to
every child in conflict with law presupposes
that there is a prima facie case against him
in the assessment of the Board or the Court
based on the evidence placed at that stage.
It is where a case against a child in conflict
with law is prima facie made out that the
rule in Section 12(1) of the Act that
sanctions bail as a rule, except the three
categories contemplated by the proviso
comes into play. It is certainly not the rule,
and, in the opinion of the Court cannot be
so, that a case on materials and evidence
collected not being made out against a
child at all, his case has to be tested on the
three parameters where bail may be denied
presuming that a prima facie case is
constructively there. Thus, it would always
have to be seen whether a case prima facie
on merits against a child in conflict with
law is there on the basis of material
produced by the prosecution against him. If
it is found that a prima facie case on the
basis
of
material
produced
by
the
prosecution is there that would have led to
a denial of a bail to an adult offender, in
that case also the Rule in Section 12(1) of
the Act mandates that bail is to be granted
to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law
except where his case falls into any of the
three disentitling categories contemplated
by the proviso.

12. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the perception that merits of the
case on the basis of prima facie evidence is
absolutely irrelevant to a juvenile's bail
plea under the Act would not be in
conformity with the law. The catena of
decisions that speak about merits of the
case or the charge against a juvenile being
irrelevant, proceed on facts and not an
assumption that a case on merits is made
out, and, not where the case is not at all
made out prima facie. It is not that a child
alleged to be in conflict with law against
whom there is not iota of evidence to
connect him to the crime would still have
bail denied to him because his case may be
placed
in
or
the
other
disentitling
categories under the proviso to Section
12(1) of the Act. If this kind of a
construction were to be adopted it might
expose the provisions of Section 12(1) of
the Act to challenge on ground of violating
the guarantee of equal protection of laws
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is an enduring principle that a
construction that lends a statute to
7 All. Sanju @ Gulfu (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
257
challenge about its constitutionality should
be eschewed and one that saves and
upholds its vires is to be adopted. In this
context the guidance of their Lordships of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani
Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty,
(2007) 7 SCC 394 may be referred to:-

"51. The matter can be looked at
from different angle also. Once it is accepted
(and there is no dispute about it) that it is not
within the domain of the complainant or
prosecuting agency to take cognizance of an
offence or to issue process and the only thing
the former can do is to file a complaint or
initiate proceedings in accordance with law.
If that action of initiation of proceedings has
been taken within the period of limitation, the
complainant is not responsible for any delay
on the part of the Court or Magistrate in
issuing process or taking cognizance of an
offence. Now, if he is sought to be penalized
because of the omission, default or inaction
on the part of the Court or Magistrate, the
provision of law may have to be tested on the
touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. It
can possibly be urged that such a provision is
totally
arbitrary,
irrational
and
unreasonable. It is settled law that a Court of
Law would interpret a provision which would
help sustaining the validity of law by
applying
the
doctrine
of
reasonable
construction rather than making it vulnerable
and unconstitutional by adopting rule of
'litera legis'. Connecting the provision of
limitation in Section 468 of the Code with
issuing of process or taking of cognizance by
the Court may make it unsustainable and
ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution."

15. 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.

16. In the present case there appears
to be no distinguishing feature from the
case of the said co-accused, who is adult
offender circumstanced identically as the
revisionist. There is no justification to hold
the revisionist not entitled to the liberty of
bail. It is also taken note of by this Court
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.
Both the courts below have passed the
impugned judgment and orders in cursory
manner without placing due reliance on the
report submitted by the District Probation
Officer as well as facts and circumstances
of the case. This Court, thus, finds that the
impugned orders cannot be sustained and
are liable to be set aside and reversed.

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 Hon'ble
Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State
of
Madhya
Pradesh
(supra),
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P.
and others (supra), Japani Sahoo vs.
Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (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 26.10.2019
passed
by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge
POCSO
Act,
Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No.35 of
2019 and the order dated 30.7.2019
passed
by
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Kaushambi in Bail Application No.22 of
2019, Case Crime No.337 of 2018, under
Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4
D.P.
Act,
Police
Station
Puramufti
District Kaushambi, are hereby set aside
and reversed.The bail application of the
revisionist stands allowed.

19. Let the revisionist, Sanju @
Gulfu
(Minor)
through
his
natural
guardian Mahendra Kumar be released on
bail in Case Crime No.337 of 2018 under
Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4
D.P.
Act,
Police
Station
Puramufti
District Kaushambi upon his natural
guardian furnishing a personal bond with
two solvent sureties of his relatives each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi
subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian of
the revisionist 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 natural guardian will
ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the
offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his
natural guardian will report to the District
Probation Officer on the first Wednesday
of every calendar month commencing
with the first Wednesday of August, 2021
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
concerned
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.
----------
7 All. Prateek Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
(2021)07ILR A259
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4002
of 2021

Prateek Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Sri Priyanka
Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Vidya Prakash Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Code of criminal
procedure,
1973
-
Section
438
-
anticipatory bail - Sections 438(1), (i), (ii),
(iii) and (iv) Cr.P.C - "inter alia" - grant
liberty to the Court to exercise its
discretion in a particular case according to
the facts and circumstances of the case,
regarding
grant
or
rejection
of
anticipatory bail - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506,
406 - doctrine of selection of remedies -
when
an
application
for
grant
of
anticipatory bail is made to this Court, it
expressely bars entertainment of the
same by the Court of Session.
(Para
-
17,20)

(B) Criminal Law - Constitution of india -
Article 21 - protection of life and personal
liberty - right to life is more precious and
sacrosanct than the right to personal
liberty which is sought to be protected by
way of grant of anticipatory bail to an
accused by the Court - apprehension of
death on account of reasons like the
present pandemic of novel corona virus
can certainly be held to be a ground for
grant of anticipatory bail to an accused -
law of anticipatory bail is founded only on
the apprehension of arrest - apprehension
may be of pre-recording or post-recording
stage of the FIR.(Para - 23)

(C) Criminal Law - Constitution of india-
Article 14 - equality before law and
equal protection of law - against the
requirement of Article 14 to leave an
accused unprotected from arrest and
suffer
the
consequences
of
being
infected with novel corona virus.(Para -
31)

Allegations against the applicant - he along
with other co-accused persons is director of a
builder company - applicant applied for a flat
being constructed by the company - paid Rs.
3,25,000/- by means of a cheque as the
booking amount - possession of flat not given
- second wave of novel corona virus has given
rise
to
apprehension
of
death
of
an
accused.(Para - 5,24)

HELD:- The apprehension of an accused
being infected with novel corona virus before
and after his arrest and the possibilty of his
spreading the same while coming into contact
with the police, Court and jail personnels or
vice-versa can be considered to be a valid
ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an
accused.(Para -31)

Anticipatory bail application allowed. (E6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, etc., Vs St. of Punj,
1980 AIR 1632

2. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC Online SC 98

3. Kerala Union of Working Journalists Vs U.O.I
& ors., Writ Petition (CRL) No. 307 of 2020

4. Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 1/2020 In Re:
Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons