Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3710 of 2019 Revisionist :- Mohan (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
This revision under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 4.9.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2019 (Mohan vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 22.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case No. 56M of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.233/2018, under Sections 452, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS-Jamunapar, District-Mathura rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri B.P. Mishra, counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority i.e. 15 years, 07 months and 14 days and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. 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 17.5.2018 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 counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and in his counter affidavit it is stated that for determination the age of the revisionist doctor Devendra Agrawal was examined as CW-1 and he determined age of the revisionist to be 20 years; he further submitted that against the impugned order whereby the revisionist was declared juvenile in conflict with law in which age was determined less than 16 years the opposite party no. 2 has filed an appeal to which counsel for the revisionist states that appeal has been filed after five months of the order before the court below in which an opportunity was afforded to opposite party no. 2 to file counter affidavit.
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.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.
The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 22.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura as well as 4.9.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura are set-aside.
The revisionist, Mohan (Minor) son of Haribabu, involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Dhirendra/