Satru Ghan vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment and order of conviction dated 20.07.2010 passed by Upper Magistrate Judicial Board, Gorakhpur and order dated 23.07.2010 passed by Upper District and Session Judge/Fast Tract Court No. 2 Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2010, whereby the bail application of the revisionist in case Crime No. 333 of 2010 under Sections 143, 326, 341, 504, 506 IPC 3(1)X SC/ST Act Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur, has been rejected.

Revisionist has been convicted and it is argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Revisionist that the orders impugned are not justified as there was no evidence against the revisionist. No specific role has been assigned to the revisionist. It is further argued that the main role of causing injury by pouring acid on the injured has been assigned to co-accused Mohan, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2010, photo copy of the same has also been produced before the Court, which has been taken on record. It is further argued that the co-accused Pappu has also been enlarged on bail vide order of this Court dated 07.07.2010, photo copy of the same has also been produced, which has been taken on record.

There is no evidence on record to show that if the revisionist is released on bail, the revisionist will join the gang of criminals or his association will endanger him physically, psychologically or morally.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

As per the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the main ground for consideration at the time of disposal of bail application of juvenile is that 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, but there is nothing on record to prove that any of such possibilities exist in the present case.

Considering the above provisions of law and also the role assigned to the revisionist, the impugned orders cannot be justified.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the revisionist Satru Ghan be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below on furnishing an undertaking of his guardian that he will not be permitted to indulge in any kind of criminal or anti social activities.