Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2319 of 2018 Revisionist :- Nizam And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Singh,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Learned AGA has filed his counter affidavit, taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No. 60/2017, arising out of order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rampur in Case Crime No. 105/2017, under Sections- 147, 148, 452, 323, 304, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Tanda, District- Rampur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant have been falsely implicated on account of some dispute and differences between the parties and that he never involved in the crime in which he alleged. It is then stated that the applicants are juvenile being about 12 and 14 years of age on the date of alleged incident.
Moreover, it has been stated that other co-accused who have similarly implicated have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Revision nos. 32911/2017, 22709/2017 and 20051/2017 decided on 12.9.2017, 29.6.2017 and 11.7.2017 respectively.
Considering the above, the present criminal revision is being decided today, though service is still not complete on opposite party no.2.
It is then submitted that the applicants have remained confined in the child observation home since 11.10.2017 and that there is no specific objection raised in the DPO report other than general and vague observations.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that it is not in dispute that the applicants is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). 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'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the applicants.
This court is 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 Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(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?
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.
It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration 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. reported in 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order dated 04.06.2018 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
Let the applicant nos. 1 and 2 involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicants 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 applicants 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 :- 23.8.2018 Gaurav Pal