Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2773 of 2016 Revisionist :- Gore Lal Alias Mohammad Kaif Minor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bal Ram Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Bal Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ravi Singh Parihar, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record but none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, to contest the matter, though the matter is called for in the revised list.
This revision has been preferred by the real maternal Grand- mother (Nani) namely Noor Jahan, for release of the revisionist, who is minor, against the judgement and order dated 29.07.2016, passed by Sri Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2016 (Gore Lal @ Mohammad Kaif Vs. State of U.P.) under section 363, 302, 201, 376Gha, 34 I.P.C. and 3/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of P.S. Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of Judgment and order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar in Case Crime No. 285 of 2015, under section 363, 302, 201, 376Gha, 34 I.P.C. and 3/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar.
Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile.
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, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate 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. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders 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 21.11.2015 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 Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal 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 A.G.A. could not raise any dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts.
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.
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.
12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
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 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 persons 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 subsection (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.
3. When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
4. When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.
In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position and the fact that in this case no such conditions exist, on the basis of which the bail application of a juvenile can be dismissed, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgement and order dated 29.07.2016, passed by Sri Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Judgment and order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar, are hereby set aside.
In these circumstances, revisionist is entitled for bail.
Let revisionist - Gore Lal @ Mohammad Kaif be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond by the natural guardian namely Noor Jahan, the maternal Grand- mother of the revisionist, Gore Lal @ Mohammad Kaif, and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board to the effect that he will not come into contact with other offenders.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Arti