Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
The instant criminal revision under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein-in-after referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 142/2019 (Chhatthu Paswan versus State of U.P. & another) by which appeal of the revisionist was dismissed and order dated 10.10.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 416/2018 (State Vs. Chhatthu Paswan) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 395, 332, 333, 353, 186, 120-B I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.- Chauri Chaura, District- Gorakhpur by which prayer of release of revisionist was rejected.
As per F.I.R. version of this case it was registered on 15.10.2018 as Case Crime No. 416/2018 against the revisionist under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 395, 332, 333, 353, 186, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Since the revisionist claimed juvenility, after holding preliminary assessment, the Juvenile Justice Board has declared the revisionist as juvenile and it was held that at the time of incident his age was 16 years 08 months 07 days.
After being declared juvenile, revisionist filed an application for bail through his mother/guardian before Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 10.10.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur .
Against the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by The Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the application to release the revisionist on bail, appeal was filed which was rejected by order dated 17.02.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur.
Against the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur and order dated 17.02.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur, this revision has been filed by the revisionist on the ground that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Impugned orders are against law and not passed keeping in view the spirit of law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law. The reasoning of the impugned orders are superficial, not convincing and not supported by any evidence.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of release of the revisionist on bail and submitted that learned Juvenile Justice Board and learned appellate court has rightly rejected the prayer to release him on bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties along with entire matter available on record.
Bail of juvenile in conflict with law has to be considered on parameters in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. Section 12(1) and (2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 regarding bail of juvenile provides:-
"(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board."
Contention raised on behalf of revisionist has been confined to the extent that the revisionist is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The revisionist has already been declared juvenile by the court of Juvenile Justice Board. There is no evidence on record that may indicate that the release of revisionist 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 evidence that the revisionist has any criminal antecedent. D.P.O. has submitted the report against him only on the basis of criminal history of the brother of the revisionist namely Mithun, who is alleged to be a co-accused of this case and has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 29.04.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1076 of 2019.
In view of the submission made by both the parties and considering the fact of the case, the Court is of the view that there is sufficient ground to allow the revision.
In the result, this criminal revision succeeds and the impugned orders dated 19.09.2019 & 17.02.2020 are hereby set aside and reversed. Bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.
Let the revisionist Chhatthu Paswan be released on bail in aforesaid case upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur subject to the following conditions:-
(1) The guardian/mother will furnish an undertaking that on release of the revisionist on bail juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that his mother/guardian will ensure that juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(2) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the fact that he shall remain present before the trial court on each fixed date.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Sachin