Court No. - 38
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 728 of 2019 Revisionist :- Abdul Raheem (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
This revision has been filed by Abdul Raheem (minor) through his natural guardian/father namely Karim @ Karimullah to quash the order dated 2.1.2019 passed by IInd Addl. Sessions/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar in Cri. Appeal No. 80 of 2018 (Abdul Raheem Vs. State of U.P. ) as well as the order dated 23.11.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar in Cri. Case no. 27 of 2018 ( State Vs. Abdul Raheem), arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2018, u/s 304, 325, 323, 504, 508 IPC, P.S. Itwa, Distt. Siddharth Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
Brief facts of this case are that on 11.6.2018 an FIR was lodged by O.P. no. 2 against the revisionist, his father and mother with allegation that on 10.6.2018 at about 5:00 pm, the revisionist and the two others due to previous enmity had beaten his husband by wooden scale, iron rod & bricks and grievous injury was caused to her son, daughter and husband. During the medical treatment her husband has died. Upon that information Case Crime No. 80 of 2018 u/s 304, 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC was lodged against the revisionist and others. Revisionist was declared juvenile as his age was found at the time of occurrence as 13 years, 2 months and 6 days, by the Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar. But application for release on bail filed by him was rejected by Board vide order dated 23.11.2018. An appeal filed on his behalf was also dismissed vide order dated 2.1.2019 passed by the appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said judgement and order of both Courts below this revision has been filed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that revisionist is innocent, he has not committed any offence. He is juvenile. There is no possibility that if he is released on bail, he will fall in association of any known or unknown criminal or there will be any danger to his moral, physical or psychological development. The report submitted by the District Probation Officer is also not against him. He has no criminal history. Both the Courts below have passed the impugned order without perusing the material and evidence on record and against the provision of law hence, liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA vehemently opposed the submission made by the counsel for the revisionist and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (Act) has been enacted with object to reform and protect the future career of children below the age of 18 years. The main purpose of this Act is to keep the juvenile out of company and society of habitual criminals and to keep them in place of safety. The parameter and guidelines for assessment of plea of bail of a juvenile has been provided in Section 12 of the Act which is as under:-
"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, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of 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.
When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."
Thus it is clear that the provision for release to a juvenile has overriding effect to any provision contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. According to this provision, a duty has been cost to grant bail to a juvenile unless there is a reasonable ground for plea that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into organization with any known criminal or exposed the said juvenile to moral, physical or psycological danger or the person release would defeat the end of justice.
In the F.I.R. only revisionist, his father and mother have been named. No habitual, known or unknown criminal is involved in the said offence. Admittedly the revisionist's age was 13 years and 2 months at the time of occurrence. He is in custody since12.6.2018.
From perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by the appellate Court as well as of Juvenile Justice Board, it transpires that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgement and order in cursory manner without placing due reliance on the report submitted by the District Probation Officer as well as facts and circumstances of this case. The aforesaid orders are not in accordance with the mandate of Section 12 of the Act. The impugned judgement and orders are liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Both the impugned judgement and orders dated 2.1.2019 and 23.11.2018 passed by the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board respectively are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Abdul Raheem (juvenile) through his natural guardian/father Karim @ Karimullah be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into custody of his father on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar subject to following conditions:-
(i) That, Karim @ Karimullah, natural guardian/father of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and he will make best effort for improvement of juvenile.
(ii) That the revisionist and his father shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Vandana