Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 103 of 2017 Revisionist :- Balloo @ Suhel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Thakur Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.4, Bijnor in S.T. No. 112 of 2016 (State vs. Babloo @ Suhel) arising out of case crime no. 433 of 2016, u/s 363, 366, 354D, 506 IPC, and section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Haldaur, District Bijnor rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned order along with entire material on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer, in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dexit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. 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 the impugned order 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 1.9.2016 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-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.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge in 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 AGA 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, learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 5.12.2017 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.4, Bijnor is set-aside.
The revisionist, Balloo @ Suhel son of Shri Anees Ahmad, resident of Mohalla Dhuliawala Khera, Uttari Haldaur, District Bijnor, involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No., 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 :- 22.2.2018 Dhirendra/