Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This revision has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 09.10.2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge/ POCSO Act, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2018 (Abdul Akhir Khan @ Adil Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) as well as order dated 06.09.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 268 of 2016, under Sections 302 and 328 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldirai, District Sultanpur.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was a student of Class X on the date of alleged incident and he has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board failed to consider the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act as well as D.P.O. report and rejected his bail application. It is further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of applicant.
Learned counsel has filed D.P.O. report, which is taken on record.
Reliance has been placed on the said report of the D.P.O., in which it is observed that the conduct and behaviour of the revisionist is found to be satisfactory in the society and his neighbours also made positive statement about him. It is further mentioned in the report that it seems necessary to connect the revisionist with the mainstream of the society for his reform. It is stated by the learned counsel for the revisionist that no specific or strong objection has been made by the D.P.O. in his report and only general observations have been made.
It is further submitted that against the rejection order dated 6th September, 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2018 was filed, but the appellate court has also dismissed the same without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the D.P.O. report. It is also submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 17th January, 2018.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice'.
This Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile, which are as follows:
?(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice??
Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.
It has further been submitted that gravity of the offence could not be relevant for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile, as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has also been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Learned AGA has opposed prayer, but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 12 of the Act as also the recommendation of the D.P.O. that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent. Further there is no observation of the D.P.O. that if the revisionist is released on bail, he shall go in association with the criminals.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2018 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge/ POCSO Act, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2018 (Abdul Akhir Khan @ Adil Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) as well as order dated 06.09.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 268 of 2016, under Sections 302 and 328 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldirai, District Sultanpur, are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist, Abdul Akhir Khan @ Adil involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicant through guardian 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;
(iii) The applicant through guardian 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 VKS