Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 644 of 2018 Revisionist :- Nagendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Prakash
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Sri Raghvendra Prakash learned counsel has put in appearance for the opposite party no. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
3. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 09.2.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 01 Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2017 arising out of order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in case crime No. 215 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC, police station Nizambad, district Azamgarh.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits:
(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 16 years 11 months of age;
(ii) though the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and his name was subsequently introduced after one year of the incident.
(iii) the applicant has been completely falsely implicated.
(iv) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the DPO report, other than the general and vague observations;
(v) It is submitted that while the applicant has not been involved in any criminal offence, arising upon the present case registered against the applicant, he has also been implicated in another case ;
(vi) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(vii) the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time, since 27.7.2017 and;
(viii) none of the grounds contemplated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are available, to deny the bail to the applicant.
(ix) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.
5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the applicant has been involved in other criminal cases also and therefore is not entitled for grant of bail in the present case as well. In view of proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, it is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false, and/or motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.
6. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may 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 would defeat the ends of justice'.
7. However, it may not be denied that co-accused Kamran, who has been assigned similar role as the applicant, has already been granted bail by the court of Sessions by order dated 30.8.2017 which has been annexed with the affidavit in support of the present revision.
8. The court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-
(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?
9. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.
10. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclavity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The mother of the applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release.
11. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court. Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained. The order dated 09.2.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 01 Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2017 and the order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in case crime No. 215 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC, police station Nizambad, district Azamgarh are hereby set aside.
12. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the applicant Nagendra Yadav 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