Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2585 of 2019 Revisionist :- Mohd. Arif (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surya Prakash Viswakarma
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Surya Prakash Vishwakarma, learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. The revisionist has no criminal history. He further submits that there is no specific role assigned to the present revisionist. The revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 02.11.2018. Learned counsel for revisionist further submits that during investigation it was found that it was co-accused Sirajuddin who cut the neck of the deceased by razor and not the present revisionist. Other co-accused who was major, namely, Nizamuddin has been enlarged by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37434 of 2019. One more co-accused Anjum @ Shahid has also been enlarged on bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15873 of 2019. The case of the applicant is akin to the aforesaid co-accused persons who were enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for revisionist claims parity. He further submits that revisionist is in jail since 03.07.2018.
It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the revisionist of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the revisionist is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Admittedly, revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile. 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 (2 of 1974) or 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 person's 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 the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Section 12 of the Act is fully attracted in this case, therefore, it would be just and expedient to enlarged the revisionist Mohd. Arif on bail.
The revision is allowed. the impugned orders dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth nagar in Case Crime No.175 of 2018 are hereby quashed.
Let the revisionist- Mohd. Arif be enlarged on bail, in Case Crime No.175 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond by the natural guardian of Mohd. Arif 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 :- 29.11.2019 Shubhankar