Court No. - 60
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3525 of 2017 Revisionist :- Abdul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Madan Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
The instant revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2017 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2017 by which the order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh rejecting the bail application of the revisionist under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act concerning Case Crime No. 207 of 2017, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh has been affirmed and the bail plea has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh on 01.07.2017, which was not challenged by opposite party no. 2 before any Court of law. It has been submitted that the maximum sentence under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, is 3 years whereas the revisionist is in jail since 20.5.2017. It has been submitted that the revisionist has already undergone half of the sentence awarded to him and he has no criminal history.
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 (here-in-after referred to as "Juvenile Justice Act"). 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". It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.
This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned Appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders dated 16.09.2017 and 26.07.2017 are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(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.?
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.
It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration 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. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 16.09.2017 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh and order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Abdul involved in Case Crime No. 207 of 2017, under Sections 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh 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 revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist 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 revisionist 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 :- 29.10.2018 Arvind