Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3655 of 2016 Revisionist :- Aniket Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 9.9.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur was dismissed. By the said order dated 9.9.2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur has rejected the bail application of juvenile (revisionist) in crime no. 173 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station-Rampur Maniharaan, District-Saharanpur.
As per prosecution version, some person have committed murder of Madanpal nephew of informant.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the present case, no reasonable ground, as specified in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act') exists for rejecting the bail application. The revisionist is in protection and care of children home for more than 2 years. Moreover, there is nothing adverse against the revisionist/applicant in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that revisionist is not named in the FIR and he has been made accused only on the basis of extra judicial confessional statement of his family members before Mahendra Singh s/o Phul Singh. There is no any criminal antecedents against the revisionist and he is in juvenile care and protection home concerned.
Lastly, learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that the Ravi Kumar (Juvenile) has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 20.4.2018 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 3656 of 2016 (Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.).
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur and Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur.
The Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur and Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur while rejecting the bail of the juvenile have not properly considered the grounds specified in the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 .
There is no material evidence on record to show that release of revisionist (juvenile) is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat ends of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the revisionist deserves to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. Impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Aniket (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 173 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station-Rampur Maniharaan, District- Saharanpur on his furnishing a personal bond by his legal guardian and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Jaswant