Rejoinder affidavit as well as counter affidavit filed today in Court are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur and order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.248 of 2018 under Sections 354 Gha, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gauriganj, District Amethi.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is a juvenile. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that Juvenile Justice Board had rejected the bail of revisionist without considering the provision of Section 12 of the Act as well as the report of DPO. He has further submitted that the appellate court also rejected in the most cursory manner. The revisionist is in custody since 20.07.2018 and he has no criminal history. The above aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the court below. He has further contended that during pendency of this revision the co-accused Irfan has been released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7817 of 2018, in these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above contentions but conceded that the revisionist is not having any criminal history and co-accused has been enlarged on bail.
I have considered the rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that the above aspects of the matter except to grant of bail to the co-accused has not been properly considered by the courts below.
The 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. 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 wound defeat the ends of justice'.
This Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile, which are as follows:
(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?
Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.
It has further been submitted that gravity of the offence could not be relevant 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., 2010 (68) ACC 616 and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has also been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
In view of the above, this revision is allowed and the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur and order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.248 of 2018 under Sections 354 Gha, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gauriganj, District Amethi are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist Mohd. Anas, be released on bail in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.248 of 2018 under Sections 354 Gha, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gauriganj, District Amethi, on furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf of revisionist by his legal guardian/father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions :-
(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Board on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Board that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Amit/-