Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3288 of 2017 Revisionist :- Dheeraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 29.8.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, District Maharajganj, in Case Crime No. 125 of 2017, in Appeal No. 58 of 2017, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj, as well as order dated 21.9.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Maharajganj, both the court below rejected the bail application of the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the age of the revisionist was about 15 years and 9 months. It is then submitted that the age of the prosecutrix was about 20 years and no evidence of physical violence was found in the medical report. In case, it is stated that the prosecutrix had refused to get her internal examination done. It is further submitted that on the one hand, it appears that this is a case of consensual relationship, and on the other, D.P.O. report has merely expressed an unfounded apprehension. The revisionist has remained confined in child observation home since 26.4.2017.
Further submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.
This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.
It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed prayer for bail but they could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 29.8.2017 and 21.9.2017 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Dheeraj involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Prakhar