# Vikki @ Vikas (Minor) Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 177
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2016 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikki-vikas-minor-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45973
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376-D, 120-B,
452,
506,
504,
323,
34
&
Juvenile
Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015-Section 101 & Section 66A of I.T. Act
and
section
62/63
of
Copyright
Act-
application- grant of bail to juvenile-delay of
8 days in lodging FIR -juvenile is entitled to
the benefit of the provisions of the Actrevisionist was minor at the time of
incident-the prosecution story does not
support the medical report-Juvenile Justice
Board declared him as minor determining
his age 14 years 10 months -only gravity of
offence is not relevant consideration for
refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been
envisaged in Section 12 of the Act-the Board
or the lower appellate court has not given
any reason that his release would defeat the
ends of justice in the event if he be released
on bail.(Para 3 to 20)

B. Under Section 12 the prayer for bail
may
be
rejected
if
there
appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring
him into the association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical
or psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice. It is
important
to
note
that
gravity
or
seriousness of the offence, should not be
taken as an obstacle or hindrance by the
Legislature to refuse bail to a delinquent
juvenile. (Para 14 to 19)

The revision is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

1 All. Vikki @ Vikas (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
177
and liability of the victim in relation to trial
of the case and it is not going to decide
anything
final
resulting
into
the
culminating of proceeding of main case
once for all.

30. After considering the law
enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in
several decision as discussed above, it can
easily be concluded that decision of
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. do
not decide anything finally or results into
the culminating the main proceeding of the
case. Order impunged cannot be construed
as an order which is a matter of movement
or as an intermediate or quasi final order as
discussed in the case of Amarnaath(Supra)
and Madhu Limay (Supra), so as to
maintain the revision against the said order.

31. Hence, the instant revision
petition is held to be barred and not
maintainable in the eyes of the law under
the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section
379 of Cr.P.C.. Accordingly the present
revision petition, filed against the order
dated 27.10.2020 passed by Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(E.C. Act), Varanasi, in Sessions Trial No.
118/2016 (C.N.R. No.- UPVR01-0006912016) (State of U.P. Vs. Vansraaj Patel and
Others) arising out of case crime No.22 of
2016, under Section 307, 352, 327, 326-A
of
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-
Cholapur,
District- Varanasi, is hereby dismissed.

32. Parties shall bear their own costs.
----------
(2021)01ILR A177
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Criminal Revision No. 2016 of 2020

Vikki @ Vikas (Minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Anil Kumar Jaisawal, Sri J.B. Singh

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376-D, 120-B,
452,
506,
504,
323,
34
&
Juvenile
Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015-Section 101 & Section 66A of I.T. Act
and
section
62/63
of
Copyright
Act-
application- grant of bail to juvenile-delay of
8 days in lodging FIR -juvenile is entitled to
the benefit of the provisions of the Actrevisionist was minor at the time of
incident-the prosecution story does not
support the medical report-Juvenile Justice
Board declared him as minor determining
his age 14 years 10 months -only gravity of
offence is not relevant consideration for
refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been
envisaged in Section 12 of the Act-the Board
or the lower appellate court has not given
any reason that his release would defeat the
ends of justice in the event if he be released
on bail.(Para 3 to 20)

B. Under Section 12 the prayer for bail
may
be
rejected
if
there
appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring
him into the association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical
or psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice. It is
important
to
note
that
gravity
or
seriousness of the offence, should not be
taken as an obstacle or hindrance by the
Legislature to refuse bail to a delinquent
juvenile. (Para 14 to 19)

The revision is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Kamal Vs St. of Har.,(2004) 13 SCC 526

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

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

4. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2018) 3
SCC 222

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

1. This revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 21.11.2019
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Baghpat dismissing Criminal Appeal No.51
of 2019 ( Vikki Alias Vikas 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 4.9.2019 passed
by
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Baghpat
refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in
Case Crime No.383 of 2017 under Section
376-D, 120-B, 452, 506, 504, 323, 34 IPC
and Section 66A of I.T. Act and Section
62/63 of Copyright Act, P.S. Khekra,
District Baghpat.

2. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, holding brief
of Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel
for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, as per the
version of the FIR which was lodged by the
mother of the victim, is that her daughter
namely Km. Bharti was enticed away by
co-accused Soni wife of Sunil, Sonam and
Savita and thereafter revisionist Vikki alias
Vikas committed rape with her and coaccused Sonu made the video clip of the
same.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the
alleged incident is said to have taken place
on 3.10.2017 whereas the FIR was lodged
on 11.10.2017 after a gap of 8 days but the
victim has stated in her statement under
Section 164 CrPC that the alleged incident
took place on 16.11.2016. In fact, no such
incident ever took place. The revisionist
has been falsely implicated in the present
case. As per medical report, the victim is
major and she is aged about 21 years.

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 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 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 reindulgence 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, Baghpat. The revisionist was
a juvenile aged 14 years and 10 months on
the date of occurrence. He is in jail since
12.10.2017 in connection with the present
1 All. Vikki @ Vikas (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
179
crime and has already undergone and
completed the period of the sentence out of
the maximum three years institutional
incarceration permissible for a juvenile,
under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further
submits
that
thereafter
the
revisionist applied for bail before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat upon
which a report from the District Probation
Officer was called for. The bail application
was rejected vide order dated 4.9.2019,
being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred
an appeal under Section 101 of the Act,
which was also dismissed vide order dated
21.11.2019. 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
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 pointed out that the revisionist has
already undergone and completed the
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
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 :-

"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. In spite of service of notice upon
opposite party no.2, no one has appeared on
behalf of opposite party no.2 nor any
counter affidavit has been till date. It
appears that opposite party no.2 is not
interested to file counter affidavit.

12. Learned AGA has opposed the
revisionist's case with the submission 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.

13. This Court has carefully
considered the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the impugned orders.
The juvenile is clearly below 15 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 All. Vikki @ Vikas (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
181

"(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-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."

14. A perusal of the said provision
show that bail for a juvenile, particularly,
one who is under the age of 15 years, is a
matter of course and it is only in the event
that his 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.

15. What is of prime importance in
this case is that the juvenile, who is a
young boy, has no criminal history. There
is nothing said against the juvenile,
appearing from the Social Investigation
Report that may show him to be a
desperado or misfit in the society. The two
courts below have held the juvenile
disentitled to bail on account of his 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. Both the courts below have
passed the impugned judgment and orders
in cursory manner without placing due
reliance on the report submitted by the
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Probation Officer as well as facts
and circumstances of the case.

16. 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.

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 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.

18. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 21.11.2019
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2019
( Vikki Alias Vikas versus State of UP) and
the order dated 4.9.2019 passed by Juvenile
Justice Board, Baghpat in Case Crime
No.383 of 2017 under Section 376-D, 120B, 452, 506, 504, 323, 34 IPC and Section
66A of I.T. Act and Section 62/63 of
Copyright Act, P.S. Khekra, District
Baghpat,
are
hereby
set
aside
and
reversed. The bail application of the
revisionist stands allowed.

19. Let the revisionist, Vikki Alias
Vikas through his natural guardian/brother
Prem Chand be released on bail forthwith
in Case Crime No.383 of 2017 under
Section 376-D, 120-B, 452, 506, 504, 323,
34 IPC and Section 66A of I.T. Act and
Section 62/63 of Copyright Act, P.S.
Khekra, District Baghpat 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, Baghpat 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 February, 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
1 All. Abhimanu Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
183
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.

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.
----------
(2021)01ILR A183
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2130 of 2019

Abhimanu Pandey ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Sri Prabhakar Dubey
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Gaurav Chauhan, Sri Sriram
Dhar Dubey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 401/397 ,125application-maintenance-wife
has
no
source of income-she is living separately
due
to
continuous
harassment
and
demand of dowry-Learned trial court
rightly
awarded
the
maintenance
allowance after appreciating each and
every fact.(Para 1 to 17)

B. Apex Court held that the revisional
jurisdiction
should
normally
be
exercised in exceptional cases when
there
is
a
glaring
defect
in
the
proceedings or there is a manifest error
of point of law and consequently there
has been a flagrant miscarriage of
justice. (Para 10,11)

C. The provisions of section 125, Cr.P.C.
is to provide for a social justice falling
within the swim of Articles 15(3) and 39
of the Constitution of India, which have
been enacted to protect the weaker
section of the society like women and
children. It is in the form of secular
safeguard irrespective of personal law of
the parties. The object to compel a man
to perform moral obligations towards
the society in respect of maintaining his
wife,children and old parents so that
they may not face destitution and
become the liability of the society or
may be forced to adopt a life of
vagrancy, immorality and crime for their
subsistence or go astray.(Para 9)

The revision is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Amur Chand Agrawal Vs Shanti Bose & anr.
(1973) AIR SC 799

2. St. of Ori. Vs Nakula Sahu,(1979) AIR SC 663

3. Akalu Aheer Vs Ramdeo Ram (1973) AIR SC
2145