1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 9.12.2020 passed in Crl. Appeal No.29 of 2019 and order dated 25.10.2019 passed in Case No.55 of 2019 State versus Ashish alias Kaptan, arising out of crime No.542 of 2018 under section 376 I.P.C. and sections 3/4 POCSO Act and section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Salon, district Raebareli.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears for the complainant even in revised list, in spite of the order dated 25.8.2021 passed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisionist has already incarcerated for about two years and eight months in jail against the maximum sentence of three years as provided under Section 18(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The revisionist is in jail since 20.12.2018. At the time of offence, age of the revisionist was determined as 14 years 11 months. The Juvenile Justice Board has also declared the revisionist as Juvenile. It is further submitted that the District Probation Officer has given his report in favour of the revisionist. He has stated that the conduct of the revisionist has been found to be good by Gram Pradhan and he has been falsely implicated due to election enmity. It is recommended that the child needs councilling and after councilling, he may be rehabilitated in the main stream of the society.
It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act.
It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined that after giving psychological treatment and proper education, the revisionist can be made independent and no adverse material is available against the revisionist.
It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgment and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2019 Kuldeep Vishwakarma (Minor) through his father Swami Nath versus State of U.P. and another.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.
5. There is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would 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.
6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 9.12.2020 (supra) and order dated 25.10.2019 (supra) are set aside.
The revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that parent/guardian of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 kkb/