Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 434 of 2016 Revisionist :- Anirudh Alias Ankur Thru' Natural Guardian Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Naveen Kumar Yadav,Dinesh Kumar Singh,R.K. Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashwani Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2016 (Anirudh Vs. State of U.P.) whereby dismissing the appeal, the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur has been confirmed. Vide order dated 15.12.2015, the Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the Bail Application of the revisionist in Case Crime No. 311 of 2015 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. P.S. Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur, hence, prayer is made for setting aside both the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order of Appellate Court simultaneously praying that the revisionist may be directed to be released on bail during the pendency of trial.
The prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 10.08.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., the revisionist along with two others had beaten the brother of the first informant, Arvind Yadav with an intention to kill him and strangulated him by 'Gamcha' on the spot. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 20.30 hours. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against him along with co-accused.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the accused is a juvenile who has been assessed to be of 16 years 1 month and 09 days on the date of occurrence by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 03.11.2015 which order has become final. His bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 15.12.2015 on the basis of D.P.O. report, which did not contain any evidence to the effect that in case, he was released on bail, he would come in association with known criminal, would be exposed to any moral, psychological and physical threat or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Only apprehension has been expressed in this regard because of lack of control over accused of the family, there could be possibility of his being involved in organized crime. He has no criminal history. He is in Juvenile home since 15.12.2015. In consideration of bail to a juvenile, the gravity of offence is not required to be seen as per provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is further argued that at the appellate stage also, learned appellate court has simply refused him bail on the ground that he was found involved in commission of murder of the deceased and there were sufficient evidence against him on record in this regard.
Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has contended in rebuttal that the accused has committed serious offence of murder in association with co-accused and has killed a 16 year old boy, Anil Yadav.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.
There were two eye-witnesses who have seen this occurrence, therefore, it is apparent that the learned appellate court has rejected the appeal and dismissed the bail application on the ground of seriousness of offence/gravity of offence. It is also recorded by the learned court below that courts have to be sensitive in dealing with juvenile in cases of serious nature i.e. sexual, molestation, rape, gang-rape and murder etc.
Perusal of social investigation report submitted by D.P.O. in this case states that there seems to be lack of control of parents upon the revisionist juvenile. He has received education in college. It is recommended by him that due to lack of control of family upon him, the possibility cannot be ruled out of his coming in association with criminal elements. Further, it is stated that in case, he is released on bail, ends of justice may fail and he could be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger, however, it is mentioned that no family member of the revisionist has any criminal background. His age was decided to be 16 Year 1 Month and 9 Days.
It is strange that such opinion has been given by the D.P.O. but not a single piece of evidence in support thereof has been gathered by him. There is nothing on record to show that there is any known criminal in whose association, he may come after he is released on bail. Not a single person of the family, to which the revisionist belongs, is shown to be involved in any kind of criminal case. It is settled law undoubtedly that the gravity of offence is not to be seen while considering bail of a juvenile.
In catena of cases, it has been decided conclusively that the gravity of offence shall not be seen while deciding the bail of a juvenile delinquent in conflict with law. For the sake of example excerpts of the few judgments are being quoted hereinbelow:-
1. In Mohd. Feroz @ Bhola Vs. State, 2006 (1) Crimes 389, the Delhi High Court has held as follows in pargraph 6 of the judgment:-
“6.........................
The aforesaid Section makes it mandatory for a person to be released if such person is apparently a juvenile unless of course, there are reasonable ground for believing that the release of such person 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. No such fears have been raised on the part of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the petitioner is accused of directly committing the murder of the deceased by use of a knife and he should be shown no mercy. This is not a question of mercy. The provision is mandatory and stipulates that such a person who is apparently a juvenile 'shall' be released on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force subject only to the condition mentioned above in respect of which no fears have been raised by the prosecution.”
2. In Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (71) ACC 209, in paragraph 6 of the jugment this court has held as below:-
"6. A perusal of Section 12 of the Act reveals that a juvenile is entitled to bail notwithstanding gravity of the crime. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that his 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."
3. In Master Niku Chaubey Vs. State, 2006 (43) AIC 789 (Delhi High Court), the Delhi High Court has held in paragraph 4 of the judgment as follows:-
"4............In any event, as rightly observed in the impugned order, the nature of the offence is not one of the conditions on which bail can be granted or refused to the juvenile. Bail in respect of a juvenile has to be considered purely under the parameters of Section 12 of the said Act which requires bail to be granted mandatorily unless the court feels that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in the association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice."
Lastly in Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) JIC 1036 (All), this Court has held as below in paragraph 5 of the judgment as follows:-
"5. The Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra has probably lost sight of the provisions of the Act and ignored the directions issued by this Court passed in the aforesaid revisions. He has mentioned the ground of refusal of bail to be the gravity of the offence, which is none of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. It appears from this order that the Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra was bent upon to refuse the bail without caring for the law on this point. Section 12 of the Act provides 'that the juvenile offender shall be released on bail but the exception would be that he shall not be so released if there appears 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.'"
In the present case, looking to the fact that there is discrepancy in regard to the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, there are no injuries found on the person of the deceased except one which is recorded in post-mortem report, which was responsible for his death. As per F.I.R., he was beaten badly by the accused persons so there ought to have been several injuries, hence, there is discrepancy in evidence on record.
In this view of the matter, it is being considered to be a fit case of grant of bail to the accused.
This revision is allowed.
The impugned order dated 27.01.2016 of the learned appellate court as well as order dated 15.12.2015 of the juvenile justice board, both, are set-aside.
The revisionist Anirudh Alias Ankur shall be released on bail in his father furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board on an undertaking that father Chhote Lal shall keep him under strict vigil and would not allow him to fall in company of criminals and the revisionist shall cooperate in trial. In case of default, prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 A. Mandhani