This revision has been preferred on behalf of the delinquent juvenile said to be involved in Case Crime No.98 of 2010, under sections 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, against the judgment and order dated 18.9.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the appeal of the revisionist under section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was dismissed affirming the order of the Principal Judge dated 20.8.2010. The aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2010 (Kamlesh Kumar alias Ankush vs. State of U.P.) arose out of the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by Principal Magistrate/Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid crime whereby both the courts below rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that there appears to be 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 relevant facts are that the F.I.R. at Case Crime no.98 of 2010 under the aforesaid sections 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar was lodged on 19.3.2010 at 4.45 P.M. by one Sri Suraj Kumar against unknown accused, to the effect that one Pawan Kumar aged about 25 years on 14.3.2010 at 6.00 P.M. had gone by motorcycle from his house but he did not come back till 15.3.2010. Thereafter his search was made by the complainant thus it came to light that his brother, victim Pawan Kumar had received an information on two mobile phones that some unknown persons had kidnapped him for ransom. The involvement of the revisionist came to light during investigation. The revisionist was working as a gardener at a Farm House where murder of aforesaid Pawan Kumar is alleged to have taken place. The allegations against the revisionist are that he helped co-accused person in making entry in the said Farm of the same House where the deceased Pawan Kumar was called for drinking and for joining with girl. The dead-body was dragged out from inside the Farm House and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was recovered from the revisionist.
The Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar found the age of the revisionist Kamalesh Kumar alias Ankush below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and he was declared juvenile and transferred to observation home. The bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 20.8.2010. Against the said order the matter was taken in the aforesaid criminal appeal seeking bail before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The said appeal was also dismissed.
The main submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist, who was declared as juvenile by the said Board on 23.3.2010, is in observation home since then.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has invited my attention towards the provisions of section 15(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, wherein it is provided that the Board on being satisfied on an inquiry that the juvenile had committed offence, then notwithstanding to the contrary the Board may make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to special home for the period of three years. The Juvenile Justice Board has already directed the revisionist to be sent to special home as stated above. In view of proviso to section 16 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the period of detention so ordered shall not exceed in any case the maximum period of three years. The main submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the juvenile delinquent is in the said protection home for 2 years and 2 months. In this case, the bail case is based on circumstantial evidence. Till today proceedings are at the same stage before the said Board.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited the case of Sanjay Chaurasia vs. State of U.P. and another, (2006 (55) ACC 480) and relied upon the same.
These facts are not disputed by the learned A.G.A. but he submits that the offence committed by the revisionist is of grave in nature. The rejection of the bail application of the revisionist by the courts below by the aforesaid judgment and order is based on the report of the District Probation Officer mentioning therein that there are sufficient grounds for believing that if the revisionist is released on bail he will come into association with any known criminal. Apart from the report of District Probation Officer there is no other material to support this fact. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances the impugned judgment and order dated 18.9.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are illegal and suffer from perversity and the same are hereby set aside. Keeping in view the welfare of the revisionist with a hope that he may recover himself, he is entitled for bail.
Let the revisionist Kamlesh Kumar alias Ankush involved in Case Crime No.98 of 2010, under sections 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on his guardians furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2012 RU