Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4014 of 2018 Revisionist :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Manvesh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajeev Lochan Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of the present revision, the revisionist prays for setting aside the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by Ist Additional District and Sessions, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2018 (Deepak Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai in Case Crime No. 504 of 2017, under Section 328/ 379 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun.
On perusal of the order sheet dated 13.12.2018, 10.1.2019, 4.5.2019 and 29.7.2019, it appears that the notice was issued to opposite party no.2 but the same has not been received back after service upon opposite party no.2 hence, it appears that the opposite party no.2 has avoided service.
Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist was aged about 16 years and 9 months at the time of occurrence and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 14.8.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai. It is next stated by him that the co- accused Mahesh has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.3.2018 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9414 of 2018 and the case of revisionist is identical with the co-accused Mahesh hence, the revisionist is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The revisionist is in jail since 8.1.2018.
Learned AGA did not raise any dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts.
Not only this, the learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to those three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which reads thus:-
(a). If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that persons into association with any known criminal.
(b). Expose the said persons to moral, physical or psychological danger.
(c) 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.
If any of these factors is available, the bail could be denied. There is no material on record or in the DPO, pointing out that case of the revisionist falls in any of the above mentioned condition.
Let the revisionist Deepak through natural guardian father, Jagat Narayan @ Pappu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra with an undertaking that in case the revisionist is released on bail and is given his custody he will not create any situation which will bring the revisionist into association with any known criminal or expose to him moral, physical and psychological danger or any situation when the revisionist may repeat the offence in question and he will work for improvement of the revisionist.
Accordingly, the present revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019/Neeraj