Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
This revision has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2019 (Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Case Crime No. 315 of 2018, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 308 and 304 I.P.C., P.S. Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile aged about 15 years at the time of alleged incident. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board failed to consider the legal provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. He also submitted that the appellate court also dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner without considering the D.P.O. report.
Further reliance has been placed on the report of the D.P.O., in which it is observed that conduct of the revisionist has been found to be good and he has no criminal antecedent. It is stated that no specific or strong objection has been made by the D.P.O. in his report and only general observations have been made.
Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that the main accused-Amar singh and Vinay Kumar have already been granted bail by this Court in Bail Application Nos. 1390 of 2019 and 3877 of 2019 vide orders dated 10th April, 2019 and 16th April, 2019 respectively (Annexures 18 and 19 to the revision).
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.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2019 (Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Case Crime No. 315 of 2018, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 308 and 304 I.P.C., P.S. Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki, are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist, Ankit Kumar 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 :- 26.8.2019 VKS