Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 631 of 2017 Revisionist :- Mukul (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani,Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Kesh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record notice of hearing served upon the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 of mention made for hearing of the matter.
2. Present revision has been filed to quash the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 11 Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2016 (Mukul versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 20.9.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad in case crime No. 1126 of 2015 under Sections 302, 394, 120B, 201, 34 IPC, police station Kavi Nagar, district Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that undoubtedly the applicant was a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence being about 16 years nine months and five days of age. He would submit that though, the offence alleged is a heinous offence but as per provisions of Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act) 2015 maximum punishment that may have been awarded to the applicant may not exceed three years.
4. The applicant has remained confined since 04.9.2015. Thus, period of three years contemplated under Section 15 of the Act has expired. The applicant therefore, prays to be released on bail.
5. At this stage the applicant has already remained confined for more that maximum period of sentence that may be awarded in the event the applicant being found guilty.
6. Sri Ankit Srivastava learned A.G.A. submits that ample powers in this regard exist under Rule 98 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007. He would submit that it was open to the applicant to approach State Government in this regard to seek release.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, at present it is not in dispute either that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence or that he has remained confined for more than three years. In absence of any provision of law as may allow for any further detention of the applicant and further in view of the fact that the present revision arises from the rejection of the bail application and is before this Court, no useful purpose would be served in directing the applicant to approach the State Government.
8. Consequently, present revision is allowed fro the reason that the applicant has already completed three year period of confinement which is the maximum punishment that may have been awarded to the applicant in view of his admitted juvenility on the date of occurrence. Such position has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mali and another versus State of M.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC 1790 as followed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1763 of 2016 decided on 30.4.2018.
9. Accordingly, let the applicant Mukul involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicant through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 faraz