Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3641 of 2019 Revisionist :- Anmol Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajatshatru Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 3.8.2019 passed by the Principal Judge/Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria in Bail Application No.47 of 2019 as well as order dated 11.9.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.472 of 2019, under Sections 147, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Deoria, District Deoria.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in similar circumstances, other co-accused namely, Akash Mishra and Siddharth Mishra, who were also declared juvenile in conflict with law, have been released on bail through criminal revision no.3647 of 2019 and 3632 of 2019 respectively. Present revisionist was also declared juvenile in conflict with law on 25.7.2019. He further submitted that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 15 years 7 months and 21 days of age. Role assigned to the revisionist is not distinguishable with the role of co- accused, who have been enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and District Probation Officer report is in his favour and the applicant has remained confined in jail since 15.6.2019.
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 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 also been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail 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. Orders dated 3.8.2019 and 11.9.2019 passed by the courts concerned in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.
Let the applicant Anmol Mishra 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 :- 19.12.2019 ss