# Vishal @ Satya Prakash @ Chhotu Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 412
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 608 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishal-satya-prakash-chhotu-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-42801
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

bail application-offense under section
147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325 IPCadmittedly the applicant was minor on
date of occurrence-as such declared as
juvenile on 28.01.2014-order become
final-without
recording
any
of
the
contingencies
under
section
12
of
juvenile justice(care and protection of
children) Act 2000-considering welfare
of revisionist with hope of associating in
main stream of life if released on bailorder passed by Court below set-a-sidereleased on bail.

Held:Para-11&12

## Text

412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. The Special Appeal is dismissed.
The respondents
will complete
the
selection
process
initiated
by
advertisement
dated
19.5.2011
as
expeditiously as possible. There shall be
no orders as to cost.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 608 of 2014

Vishal @ Satya Prakash @ Chhotu
 ............Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. .......Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Singh

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

Criminal Revision- Against rejection of
bail application-offense under section
147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 325 IPCadmittedly the applicant was minor on
date of occurrence-as such declared as
juvenile on 28.01.2014-order become
final-without
recording
any
of
the
contingencies
under
section
12
of
juvenile justice(care and protection of
children) Act 2000-considering welfare
of revisionist with hope of associating in
main stream of life if released on bailorder passed by Court below set-a-sidereleased on bail.

Held:Para-11&12
11. The Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial
and social-oriented legislation, which needs
to be given full effect by all concerned
whenever the case of a juvenile comes
before them. In absence of any material or
evidence all reasonable ground to believe
that the delinquent juvenile, if released on
bail is likely to come into association with
any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger, it cannot
be said that his release would defeat the
ends of justice.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid
legislative intent in enacting the Act and
considering the welfare of the revisionist
with a hope that he may recover himself
after being released on bail, by associating
himself to the main stream of life, it appears
expedient in the interest of justice that his
prayer for bail be allowed.

Case Law Discussed:
Cri Law Jounal, Pg. 1373; Crl. Law Journal, Pg.
2957.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)

1. By means of this revision, the
revisionist has questioned the legality of the
order dated 20.02.2014 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act,
Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of
2014, Vishal @ Satya Prakash @ Chhotu
Vs. State of U.P. under Section 52 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (Hereinafter referred to
as Juvenile Justice Act), whereby the learned
Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the
appeal filed by the revisionist against the
order dated 7.2.2014 of Juvenile Justice
Board passed in Case Crime No. 129 of 2013
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and
325 of I.P.C., Police Station Khajni, District
Gorakhpur, whereby the learned Magistrate
has rejected the bail application moved by
the revisionist.

2.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist has argued that the orders
passed by both the courts below are
illegal and arbitrary. Both the courts
below
have
not
exercised
their
jurisdiction properly. No plausible reason
1 All] Vishal @ Satya Prakash @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

413
has been assigned by the courts below while
refusing to release the revisionist on bail.
Both the learned courts below have not
considered the provision of Section 12 of
Juvenile Justice Act in letter and spirit. It
has further been argued that there was
nothing in the report submitted by District
Probation Officer to indicate that after being
released on bail there is likelihood of the
revisionist coming into association with any
known criminal or his release would expose
him to moral, physical or psychological
danger or his release would defeat the ends
of justice. Despite that the learned courts
below have refused to release the revisionist
on bail without any supporting material on
the record. It is settled law that gravity of
offence will not be considered while
deciding his bail application but both the
courts below committed error of law while
rejecting the bail application of the
revisionist. The revisionist is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present
case due to village politics. No specific role
has been assigned to the revisionist. There is
delay in F.I.R. The incident is alleged to
have taken place in midnight but no source
of light has been shown in the F.I.R. The
revisionist is a juvenile, so he is entitled to
be benefited by the provisions of Juvenile
Justice Act. On the aforesaid grounds, it has
been prayed by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the revision be allowed.
Impugned order be quashed and the
revisionist be released on bail.

3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
revision by contending that the courts
below
have
rightly
exercised
their
jurisdiction by refusing the bail to
juvenile and there is no need to interfere
in the order impugned.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. The record shows that the revisionist
was declared juvenile on 28.1.2014 by
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board.
The Juvenile Magistrate has observed that
the revisionist was 15 years 2 months and 22
days old on the date of occurrence. There is
no dispute regarding the age of the
revisionist. No appeal has been filed against
the aforesaid order declaring the revisionist
to be a juvenile on the date of offence and the
aforesaid order declaring the revisionist a
juvenile has attained finality. In the aforesaid
circumstance, both the courts below should
have decided the bail application and the
appeal in view of the provisions as provided
under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act,
which is reproduced as under:

"12. Bail of Juvenile:-(1) When any
person accused of a bailable or non-bailable
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, 1972 (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 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"

6. Thus, Section 12 of the Act lays
down only three contingencies in which the
bail can be refused to juvenile. These are:

(i) If his release is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal,
or;
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii)Expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or;

(iii)That his release would defeat the
ends of justice.

Both the Impugned orders show that
the courts below have opined that if
released on bail, the possibility cannot be
ruled out that the juvenile would come
into association with his family members,
who are the co-accused in the same
occurrence. The reason given by the
Courts below for refusing bail to juvenile
does not appear just and proper.

7. The report of District Probation
Officer is available on record, in which there
is no mention of any abnormal behaviour and
his physical/mental condition and social and
economic status is shown as normal. The
District Probation Officer has also mentioned
that
the
revisionist
has
no
criminal
background
but
the
learned
Juvenile
Magistrate without considering the report of
District Probation Officer and without
assigning any cogent reason, has refused to
grant bail to the revisionist. Learned
Appellate Court instead of applying its
independent
mind
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case has also wrongly
concurred with the opinion of the Juvenile
Justice Board.

8. In Prakash Vs. State of Rajsthan,
2006, Cri Law Journal, pg. 1373, it has been
observed that " at the time of consideration of
bail under Section 12 of the Act, the merit or
nature of offence has no relevancy. The
language of the Section 12 of the Act using
the word "shall" is mandatory in nature and
providing non obstante clause by using the
expression
"notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or any other law for the time being in
force",
he
be
released
on
bail.........................................",
shows
the
intention of legislature to grant bail to the
delinquent juvenile offender with certain
exceptions. It is for the prosecution to bring
on record such materials while opposing the
bail and to make out any of the
grounds/exceptions provided in the Section
which may pursuade the Court not to release
the juvenile on bail.

9. In Rais Vs. State of U.P., A.C.C.
in Criminal Revision No. 860 of 1991 this
Court has held as under:

"The word 'known' has not been used
by the parliament in the section without
purpose. By use of word 'known' the
Parliament requires that the court must know
the full particulars of the criminal with which
the delinquent is likely to come into
association."

10..In Sanjay Chaurasiya Vs. State of
U.P., 2006, Crl. Law Journal, pg. 2957, it
has been observed as follows:

"In case of refusal of the bail some
reasonable grounds for believing above
mentioned exceptions must be brought
before the Court concerned by the
prosecution."

11. The Juvenile Justice Act is a
beneficial and social-oriented legislation,
which needs to be given full effect by all
concerned whenever the case of a juvenile
comes before them. In absence of any
material or evidence all reasonable ground to
believe that the delinquent juvenile, if
released on bail is likely to come into
association with any known criminal or
expose
him
to
moral,
physical
or
psychological danger, it cannot be said that
his release would defeat the ends of justice.
1 All] Amit Agarwal Vs. Pooja Agarwal

415

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid
legislative intent in enacting the Act and
considering the welfare of the revisionist
with a hope that he may recover himself
after
being
released
on
bail,
by
associating himself to the main stream of
life, it appears expedient in the interest of
justice that his prayer for bail be allowed.

13. In view of the above discussion,
the
revision
is
allowed.
Both
the
impugned orders passed by Juvenile
Justice Board as well as Lower Appellate
Court are quashed and the Juvenile Justice
Board is directed to release the revisionist
on bail on his mother furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two
solvent sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice
Board in Crime No.139 of 2013, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 325
of I.P.C., Police Station Khajni, District
Gorakhpur, subject to condition that the
mother of the revisionist will take care of
his education and betterment and will not
allow to indulge him in any criminal
activity and will keep constant check on
his activities. Both the sureties are
directed to be close relatives of the
revisionist juvenile.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

First Appeal No. 931 of 2012

Amit Agrawal............ Appellant
Versus
Pooja Agrawal............. Defendant

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Krishna Ji Khare, Sri Mritunjay Khare
Counsel for the Respondent:
-

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956-Section 13-BDivorce on mutual consent basis-before
mediation center-wife given consent for
permanent alimony- provided sum of Rs.
500000/-given by husband towards one
time maintenance-after accepting amount
Division Bench on basis of compromise
quash the criminal proceeding against
husband-as per terms of compromise
divorce petition-on mutual consent basis
filed-18 months elapsed-wife did not turn
up-family court rejected divorce petitionheld-once the wife accepted amount in
furtherance of compromise-given joint
affidavit- physical present not requiredorder
quashed-divorce
decree
passed
accordingly.

Held:Para-8
As such, in view of the aforesaid, the
presence of the wife on the date fixed
before the Family Court was to be
presumed as she had accepted all the
terms of the compromise and had also
acted upon the same by accepting the
permanent alimony, and the criminal cases
having also been quashed/withdrawn with
her consent, and she having signed the
papers for divorce by mutual consent.
Accordingly, the order dated 12.10.2012
rejecting the application of the parties for
grant of divorce on the basis of mutual
consent on account of the respondent-wife
having not appeared in person deserves to
be quashed, and the appellant would be
entitled to the decree of divorce by mutual
consent.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This is an appeal challenging the
order dated 12.10.2012 whereby the
divorce petition filed by the appellanthusband under section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act") has been dismissed on the
ground that the respondent-wife was not
present and since more than 18 months