Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 79 of 2018 Revisionist :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava,Saurabh Adhikary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2017 (Mukesh vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal and the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj, in Bail application No.90 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.433 of 2017, under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava & Sri Saurabh Adhikary, learned counsels for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the Courts below have illegally rejected the bail application of the revisionist who is admittedly the 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 AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
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 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 22.11.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2017 (Mukesh vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal and the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj, in Bail application No.90 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.433 of 2017, under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, are set-aside.
The revisionist, Mukesh (minor) son of Raja Ram through its legal guardian of his mother Smt. Imirati Devi wife of of Raja Ram, resident of Surharwa, P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj, involved in aforesaid case, 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 :- 23.2.2018 Hasnain