Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 258 of 2021 Revisionist :- Bindu Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Mani,Indradeo Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devendra Deo Gupta
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge,Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2020 (Bindu Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi in Case Crime No.348 of 2020 under Sections 376 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Bindu was rejected.
The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 01.10.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 05.10.2020 on the ground that his release on bail is likely to bring him into association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge,Allahabad which was rejected vide order dated 3.11.2020, hence this revision.
Heard S/Sri Ganesh Mani,Indradeo, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Devendra Deo Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders as well as material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Board has rejected the bail application on the basis of surmises and conjecture whereas the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. There was nothing on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:
12. Bail of juvenile. - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear 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.
The aforesaid 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. No such report was filed by the Probation Officer or the police so as to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.The report of the District Probation Officer was only to the effect that the parents of the revisionist have no control over the accused-revisionist and he requires proper guidance and supervision. There is nothing on record to show that 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 on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB).
In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist.
Learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set- aside.
Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge,Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2020 (Bindu Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi in Case Crime No.348 of 2020 under Sections 376 and 366 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubepur, District Varanasi are set aside.
Let the revisionist-Bindu involved aforesaid case be released on bail on his mother executing a personal bond with two solvent/reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi with the condition that he will keep the revisionist in his proper care and custody.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 MN/-