Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 358 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ankush (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kailash Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 26.5.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge-8th, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2018 (Ankush v. State of U.P. and another), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 16.2.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No. 305 of 2017, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that admittedly the revisionist was declared juvenile in conflict with law and his age was determined to be 16 years, 11 months and 21 days. It is argued that though the revisionist was not nominated in the complaint of Gumshudgi and his name surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Praveen, yet on the basis of the report submitted by the District Probation Officer in which it is stated that the juvenile seems to have carried out the incident with no realization of crime. The revisionist is a co-accused in the murder of Digvijay Singh and his involvement in the present case has come to light. The offending juvenile may be morally and psychologically jeopardized if he comes in contact with the accused in this case, the Juvenile Justice Board and lower appellate court have rejected the bail application of the revisionist.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is nothing adverse opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dixit of the courts below . It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 15.7.2017 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionist-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law. It is further submitted that other co-accused Pravesh whose name also surfaced during investigation has been allowed bail in Criminal Appeal No. 6968 of 2017 vide order dated 29.8.2018 and the case of the revisionist also stands at par with that of co-accused Pravesh.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.
The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 16.2.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur as well as 26.5.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge-8th, Saharanpur are set-aside.
The revisionist- Ankush (Minor) son of Sri Ved Prakash, R/o Village Imlikheda, Police Station, Kaliyar, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Vikas