Shakil Khan vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA in support of opposition of this revision.

Shakil Khan, revisionist is involved in Case Crime No. 764 of 2006 for offences under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C. He was declared to be a juvenile but his bail prayer in the aforesaid offence was rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly vide its order dated 4122006. The said rejection order was challenged in appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2006, which was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bareilly vide his impugned order dated 22122006, hence the present revision for being released on bail.

I have heard Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision and the learned AGA in opposition.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist is not named in the FIR nor any recovery was made from his possession. He further contended that even according to the prosecution case only the terricot sari is said to have been recovered from the possession of the revisionist. He further contended that the coaccused have already been released on bail and, therefore, the revisionist should also be released on bail. He further contended that there was no report against the revisionist that he has got criminal history and after being released on bail, he will fall in the company of bad person and anti social elements. He submitted that since the revisionist is a juvenile, his further incarceration will not be useful for his over all development and, therefore, he should be released on bail as Juvenile Justice Act is meant for betterment of juvenile offender and to bring them into the main stream of law abiding citizens. Learned Counsel contended that any harsher treatment of the juvenile offender may have a counter productive effect.

Learned AGA on the other hand contended that the recovery of sari has been made at the instance of the applicant and if released on bail, he is likely to fall in the company of bad person.

I have gone through the submissions raised by both the sides. From the record, it does not transpire that there is any material which indicate that the revisionist, after being released on bail is likely to fall in the company of bad person. There was no report either form the police station or from the remand officer that the revisionist has got bad antecedent.

In this view of the matter, I consider it appropriate to release the revisionist on bail.

Let the revisionist Shakil Khan involved in Case Crime No. 764 of 2006, under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly be released on bail on his father Sardar Khan furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/ and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly. The father is further directed to keep a watch over the revisionist Shakil Khan and will produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly once in a month at time and date to be fixed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly. The father is further directed to get the revisionist admitted in some school for his better management.

With the aforesaid directions, this revision is allowed.

Revision allowed.