Heard Mr. Amit Chaudhary, learned counsel for revisionist whose Vakalatnama is taken on record and learned AGA appearing for opposite party no.1.
Despite list being revised, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 although name of Mr. Vinod Kumar, is printed in the cause list.
This criminal revision under sections 102 and 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.08, Unnao, bearing Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2018, (Keshan Kumar @ Krishnavatar vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 16.10.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Unnao in Bail Application No.54 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.35 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC registered at Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao.
Learned counsel for revisionist submits that as per the order of the Board, the revisionist at the time of incident was aged about 17 years and six months. It is submitted that the revisionist is not named in the first information report lodged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. It has further been submitted that it was only on account of confessional statement of one Aditya Yadav @ Vidhya Bhushan that the revisionist was apprehended and taking into custody. It is submitted that there is no other evidence against the revisionist except for the confessional statement. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid Aditya Yadav @ Vidhya Bhushan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2019 in bail application no.2752 of 2019 and therefore the revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail particularly since he has been in custody since 17.03.2018. It is submitted that there is no possibility or allegation of the revisionist tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses in any manner.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the report submitted by District Probation Officer which is conducive to the revisionist and nothing adverse whatsoever in terms of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been indicated therein.
Learned AGA has disputed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist with submission that the present revision is not liable to be allowed. It has further been submitted that the first information report is not delayed.
Admittedly, revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile. Section 12 of the Act provides as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused, as under :-
"Section 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 (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 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 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.
(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 aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Act.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record particularly report of Probation Officer, it is evident that juvenile belongs to a family with no criminal history and has also normal behaviour & living.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
There is no material on record to indicate that in case the applicant is released, it would 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, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.08, Unnao in Appeal No.61 of 2018 and order dated 16.10.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Unnao rejecting bail application of Revisionist are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist Keshan Kumar @ Krishnavatar be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.35 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Asiwan, District Unnao, subject to executing personal bond by his father/ guardian along with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court/board concerned. The father/ guardian shall also furnish an undertaking that he will keep the revisionist-applicant under his effective control and shall make every endeavour to ensure that the revisionist should not commit any illegal or immoral act and the revisionist should not join the association with any known criminal.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 Subodh/-