# Sneha Kumari @ Gungun Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sneha-kumari-gungun-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48420
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.G.A.,
Sri
Pradeep
Kumar
Rai,
Sri
Deependra Kumar

A. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Section 12 - The Court after considering the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the likelihood of early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of any
convincing material to indicate the possibility of
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tampering with the evidence and considering
that the prosecution has not produced any
single witness against the revisionist who
actually seen the incident, the fact that the case
rests on circumstantial evidence and in view of
the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the
Indian
Constitution,
granted
bail
to
the
revsiionist. (Para 20)

Revision Allowed. (E-10)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Sneha Kumari @ Gungun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
149
India and the dictum of Apex Court in the
case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22
and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.

26. Let the applicant- Gaurav @
Gaura, who is involved in aforementioned
case crime be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned subject to following
conditions (Further, before issuing the
release order, the sureties be verified):-

(i) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
Court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it
as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders
in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain
present before the Trial Court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without
sufficient cause, the Trial Court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A
IPC.

(iii)
In
case,
the
applicant
misuses the liberty of bail during trial and
in
order
to
secure
his
presence
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.,
may be issued and if applicant fails to
appear before the Court on the date fixed in
such proclamation, then, the Trial Court
shall initiate proceedings against him, in
accordance with law, under Section 174-A
IPC.

(iv) The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the Trial Court
on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case,
(2) framing of charge and (3) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the Trial Court absence of
the applicant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for
the Trial Court to treat such default as
abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against
him in accordance with law.

27. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

28. It is made clear that observations
made in granting bail to the applicant shall
not in any way affect the learned trial Judge
in forming his independent opinion based
on the testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2022)04ILR A149
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2022

Sneha Kumari @ Gungun ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Prashant Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.,
Sri
Pradeep
Kumar
Rai,
Sri
Deependra Kumar

A. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Section 12 - The Court after considering the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the likelihood of early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of any
convincing material to indicate the possibility of
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tampering with the evidence and considering
that the prosecution has not produced any
single witness against the revisionist who
actually seen the incident, the fact that the case
rests on circumstantial evidence and in view of
the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the
Indian
Constitution,
granted
bail
to
the
revsiionist. (Para 20)

Revision Allowed. (E-10)
List of Cases cited:-

1. Balakrishna Tukaram Angre Vs The St. of
Mah. Criminal Appeal No. 1704 of 2017

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

3. Shiv kumar @ Sadhu Vs St. of U.P. 2010 (68)
ACC 616 (LB) (followed)

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

5. Kamal Vs St. of Har. 2004 (13) SCC 526
(followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 19.11.2021
passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO
Act)/
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Ghaziabad, dismissing Criminal Appeal
No. 101 of 2021 (Sneha Kumari @ Gungun
versus State of U.P.), filed under Section
101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short
''the Act') and affirming an order of
Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad dated
12.01.2021 refusing bail plea to the
revisionist in Case Crime No. 67 of 2020,
under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Link
Road, District Ghaziabad.

2. Heard Shri Prashant Rai, the
learned counsel for the revisionist, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Shri Pradeep
Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that it is a case of circumstantial
evidence. There is no independent eye
witness of the alleged incident. The name
of the revisionist surfaced in the statement
of eye witness, namely, Smt. Naina Devi,
who also in her statement had stated that
she is not assured but there is some
relations between the revisionist and coaccused, Jitendra, and they must have
killed the deceased, who is the mother of
the revisionist. The informant is the father
of the revisionist who was in the State of
Bihar at the time of incident and on the
basis of statement of witness, Naina Devi,
the F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist
and the co-accused, Jitendra.

4. Leaned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that according to the
postmortem report of the deceased cause of
death is due to compression of neck by
ligature.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that no eye witness took the
name of the revisionist that she was
involved in the present crime. The alleged
recovery of rope made by the police is not
from the possession of the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that it is a case based on
circumstantial evidence. The revisionist has
been roped in by the police on the basis of
statements of Smt. Naina Devi, Satyanarain
and Urmila Devi, who have also not seen
the incident. The recovery memo is totally
false. It is also argued that there is no
incriminating evidence available on record
about the revisionist's involvement in the
commission of alleged offence.
4 All. Sneha Kumari @ Gungun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
151

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishna
Tukaram Angre Vs. The State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.
1704 of 2017. In the said decision, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to
observe that case of the prosecution rests
on circumstantial evidence and the accused
has been in custody for fifteen months.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the present case is a
case of the circumstantial evidence. It is
well settled law that where there is no
direct evidence against the accused and the
prosecution rests its case on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be
justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. In other words, there must be
chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that
within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused. All the
links in the chain of circumstances must be
complete and should be proved through
cogent evidence. In the present case there is
no continuing chain of evidence.

9. 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
her in association with any known
criminals or expose her to mental, physical
or psychological danger or her release
would defeat the ends of justice. He further
submits that except this the revisionist has
no previous criminal history. The maternal
uncle (Mama) of the revisionist is giving
his undertaking that after release of the
revisionist on bail, he will keep her under
his custody and look after her properly.
Further, the revisionist undertakes that she
will not tamper the evidence and she 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 her into
association with known criminals.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that it is not in dispute that
the revisionist is a juvenile as she already
been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice
Board,
Ghaziabad
vide
order
dated
05.11.2020. The revisionist was a juvenile
aged 15 years, 11 months and 02 days on
the date of occurrence. She was, thus,
clearly below 16 years of age. She is in
detention since 14.02.2020 in connection
with the present crime and has completed a
substantial period of sentence out of the
maximum
three
years
institutional
incarceration permissible for a juvenile,
under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further
submits
that
thereafter
the
revisionist applied for bail before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, upon
which a report from the District Probation
Officer was called for. The bail application
was rejected vide order dated 12.01.2021,
being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred
an appeal under Section 101 of the Act,
which was also dismissed vide order dated
19.11.2021. Hence the present criminal
revision has been filed before this Hon'ble
Court mainly on the following amongst
other grounds:

(i) That the revisionist is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present
case
due
to
rivalry/village
partibandi.

(ii) 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.

(iii) That the revisionist has no
criminal history except the present case.

(iv) That the law has been laid
down by this Court as well as the Apex
Court that the seriousness of the offence is
no ground to reject the bail of the juvenile
and only three contingencies have been
provided to be considered at the time of
consideration of the bail application and
those are if the release is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal
or would expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice.

(v) That the father 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 properly.

(vi)
That
the
revisionist
undertakes that he will not tamper the
evidence and he will always cooperate the
trial proceedings.

(vii) That both the courts below
have committed gross illegality by rejecting
the revisionist's bail prayer after declaring
him juvenile.

(viii) That both the courts below
have given wrong findings without any
material available on record.

(ix) That there was no report
regarding
any
previous
criminal
antecedents of the family or background of
the revisionist.

(x) That there is no chance of
revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into
association with known criminals.

(xi) That the impugned orders
passed by the courts below are totally
arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

(xii) That the findings given by
the courts below are based on conjectures
and surmises.

12. 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 she is ready to cooperate
with the process of law and shall faithfully
make herself available before the court
whenever required and is also ready to
accept all the conditions which the Court
may deem fit to impose upon her. 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.

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has pointed out that the revisionist has by
now
done
a
substantial
period
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. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the
revisionist 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 :-
4 All. Sneha Kumari @ Gungun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
153

"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."

14. 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."

15. Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri
Pradeep Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 have opposed the
revisionist's case with the submission that
the release of the revisionist on bail would
bring her into association of some known
criminals, besides, exposing her to moral,
physical and psychological danger. It is
submitted that her release would defeat the
ends of justice, considering that she is
involved in a heinous offence.

16.

This
Court
has
carefully
considered the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the impugned orders.
The juvenile is clearly below 16 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:

17.Provided that such person
shall not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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-incharge 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."

17. A perusal of the said provision
show that bail for a juvenile, particularly,
one who is under the age of 16 years, is a
matter of course and it is only in the event
that his/her case falls under one or the other
disentitling categories mentioned in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act that bail may be refused. The merits
of the case against a juvenile acquire some
relevance under the last clause of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 that
speaks about the ends of justice being
defeated.
The
other
two
disentitling
categories are quite independent and have
to be evaluated with reference to the
circumstances of the juvenile. Those
circumstances are to be gathered from the
Social Investigation Report, the police
report and in whatever other manner
relevant facts enter the record.

18. What is of prime importance in
this case is that the juvenile, who is a
young girl, less than the age of 16 years,
has no criminal history. There is nothing
said against the juvenile, appearing from
the Social Investigation Report that may
show her to be a desperado or misfit in the
society. The two courts below have held the
juvenile disentitled to bail on account of
her case falling under each of the three
exceptions enumerated in the proviso to
sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no
reason has been indicated. That finding, in
both the orders impugned, is based on an
ipse dixit, in one case of the judge and in
the other of the Board. Even if it be
assumed that the offence was committed in
the manner alleged, it would be rather
strained logic to hold that release of the
juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of
justice being defeated.

19. 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.

20. 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
4 All. Sneha Kumari @ Gungun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
155
the evidence and considering that the
prosecution has not produced any single
witness against the revisionist who actually
seen the incident, and the fact that the case
rests on circumstantial 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 Apex
Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh (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.

21. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and orders dated 12.01.2021 and
19.11.2021, are hereby set aside and
reversed. The bail application of the
revisionist stands allowed.

22. Let the revisionist, Sneha
Kumari @ Gungun, through her natural
guardian/ maternal uncle (Mama), Rajesh
Kumar, be released on bail in Case Crime
No. 67 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC,
Police
Station
Link
Road,
District
Ghaziabad, upon her maternal uncle
furnishing a personal bond with two
solvent sureties of his relatives each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the
Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad subject
to the following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian/
maternal uncle (Mama), Rajesh Kumar
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 maternal uncle will ensure
that the juvenile will not repeat the
offence.

(ii) The revisionist and her
maternal uncle (Mama), Rajesh Kumar
will report to the District Probation
Officer on the first Wednesday of every
calendar month commencing with the first
Wednesday of May, 2022 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, Ghaziabad, 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.

23.

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.
----------
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)04ILR A156
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 670 of 2016

Smt. Kahkashan & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
Umesh Kumar Gupta @ Abbas Husain
Kahkashan ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Mohiduddin Khan, Mohammad Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Lokendra Kumar Gupta, Ravendra Pratap
Singh Cha

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 125 - The Court
after careful analyzing the evidence on record
observed that concubinage can be presumed
from
mobile
phone
and
compact
disc
submitted as an evidence. This establishes
familiarity to the extent of intimacy of the
respondent with the revisionist and her family
members. Therefore, the Court directed that
the children of the revisionist are entitled to
maintenance
from
respondent
till
their
respective marriages and marriage expenses
will also be borne by the respondent. (Para 37
& 38)

Revision Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sarla Mudgal Vs U.O.I. (1995) 3 SCC 635

2. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I. (2000) 6 SCC 224

3. Sumitra Devi Vs Bhumikan Chaudhary AIR
1985 Supreme Court 765

4. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316

5. Chanmuniya Vs Virendra kumar Singh
Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141 (followed)

6. Vimala Vs Veera Swamy 1991 (2) SCC 375

7. Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Vidyut Prava
Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675 (followed)

8. Yamuna Bai Anant Rao Aadhav Vs Anant Rao
Shivram Adav 1988 (1) SCC 530

9. Savita Ben Soma Bhai Bhatiya Vs State of
Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636

10. Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) 1
SCC 188

11. Ramesh Chandra Ram Pratapji Daga Vs
Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga (2005) 2
SCC 33

12. Captain Ramesh Chand Kaushal Vs Veena
Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the
Revisionists and Sri Lokendra Kumar
Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Kahkashan, the Revisionist No. 1
alongwith her three minor daughters filed
an application under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. on 3 August 2009 claiming
maintenance from the respondent of
Rs.20,000 per month for herself and 10,000
per month each for her three daughters i.e.
a total of Rs.50,000 per month. The facts as
mentioned by her were that the Applicant
had married the Respondent Umesh Kumar
Gupta @ Abbas Hussain ''Khun Khun' on
24 October 2002 as per Muslim rites and
rituals at the residence of the Applicant.
The Nikahnamma had been filed as an
annexure to the application. After such