JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.
1. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 8.7.2005 passed by Sri V.K. Gupta, learned Session Judge, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2005, Pappi v. State.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 30.9.2001 Kumari Sona daughter of Pappi Valmiki resident of village Kanhera police station Shergarh district Mathura lodged a report at the above police station with these assertions that her father was doing service at Panipat and her mother had gone to some unknown place after leaving the house about two years ago, and so she and her three younger brothers were residing in the house. She was the eldest. Her younger brother Yogesh was aged about 12 years, Lakhan was aged about 8 years and Chhotu was aged about 4 years. Their cousin brother Naresh used to visit their house to enquire about their welfare. Pista Balmiki was also residing in the same village. His nephews Roop, Swaroop, Pappy and Kunwar residents of village Dastauli used to visit his house. They wanted to establish (sic)licit relations with Km. Sona and so they did not like visits of Naresh to their house. They had threatened Naresh earlier. On 29.9.2001 at about 8 P.M. Naresh came to their house, and after taking food, all of them slept on different cots at about 10 P.M. Thereafter at about 12 midnight, Roop, Swaroop, Pappi and Kunwar, nephews of Pista came to their house. Upon hearing some noise, she got up and saw that Kunwar had pointed pistol towards them and was threatening that if there is any noise, he would fire at them. He(sic)e, they could not dare to raise any alarm. Roop had caught hold of(sic) Naresh and Swaroop had caught hold of his hands and Pappi committed murder of Naresh by strangulating him. Then they hanged his body to give it the shape of suicide. Thereafter they went away threatening that if information of this incident is given to any one, they would murder them. Sona could not dare to give information of this incident to any one in the night , and in the morning she told about this incident to her neighbours, and then she went to the police station and lodged the report.
3. The revisionist Pappi alias Prem Singh took a plea that he was juvenile on the date of incident. His medical examination was performed by the Chief Medical Officer to ascertain his age and his age was found to be about 19 years. However, revisionist had also filed a transfer certificate issued by the school where he was studying and according to that transfer certificate his date of birth was 20.9.1985, so on the basis of this evidence he was declared to be juvenile by Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura vide his order dated 24.4.2002. The revisionist had also moved bail application before him but that was dismissed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved with that order, the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2002 before the Sessions Judge, Mathura. Sri Shiv Charan, then learned Sessions Judge, Mathura decided the above appeal vide his judgment and order dated 30.4.2002. He dismissed the appeal and rejected the bail application of the revisionist.
4. Thereafter the accused revisionist moved another bail application No. 559 of 2002 in the court of the District & Sessions Judge, Mathura. This application was also rejected on merits by Sri M.K. Mittal, then District & Sessions Judge, Mathura vide his order dated 25.3.2004.
5. Thereafter the accused revisionist moved one more bail application before the Sessions Judge, Mathura which was registered as Bail Application No. 965 of 2004. It was heard and decided by Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura. vide his order dated 22.6.2004. This bail application was also rejected.
6. Thereafter the revisionist moved another bail application before Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura. That bail application was also rejected by the Board vide its order dated 18.12.2004. Aggrieved with that order the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Mathura,
7. The above appeal was heard and decided by Sri Ashok Kumar Mathur, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura vide his judgment dated 10.3.2005 whereby he dismissed the appeal & rejected the bail application. Thereafter the accused revisionist moved one more bail application before the Magistrate. It was also rejected on 21.3.2005. Then aggrieved with that order, he filed criminal appeal No. 28 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Mathura. This appeal was also dismissed by Sri B.B. Singh, then Incharge Sessions Judge.
8. Thereafter the accused revisionist moved one more bail application before Juvenile Magistrate. This bail application was also rejected vide his order dated 24.5.2005. Aggrieved with that order the revisionist filed criminal appeal No. 36 of 2005 before the Session Judge, Mathura. It was heard and decided by Sri V.K. Gupta, then Session Judge, Mathura vide his order dated 8.7.2005. Aggrieved with that order the revisionist filed this revision.
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.
10. It was submitted before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 a juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of right in each and every case and bail can be refused to him on the following three grounds only:
(1) Juvenile may come into contact with a known criminal after release on bail;
(2) Juvenile may be exposed to moral, psychological or physical danger after release on bail;
(3) Release of juvenile on bail may defeat the ends of justice.
He submitted that there is no positive finding on the aforesaid three points in the orders passed by the courts below and they have mainly rejected the bail application on the ground that the accused is the main offender who has allegedly committee! murder of Naresh by strangulating him and so bail should not be granted to him. It was also pointed out that bail had already been granted to co-accused Roop, Swaroop and Kunwar of this case by the High Court, and so, bail should be granted to the revisionist also.
11. The learned Counsel for the revisionist cited before me following rulings of this Court in support of his contentions for grant of bail to the revisionist:
(1) Rajendra v. State of U.P. 2003 (46) ACC 187;
(2) Deepak Kumar v. State 2003 (46) ACC 599;
(3) Vikky alias Vikram Singh v. State 2003 (46) ACC 642;
(4) Achal Singh @ Sheru v. State 2003 (46) ACC 719;
(5) Soni v. State of U.P. 2003 (46) ACC 1166.
12. I have gone through all these rulings and have also perused the orders passed by the courts below. It is true that co accused of this case were granted bail but the grounds on which bail was granted to them are that their role was of catching hands and feet of the deceased Naresh and of pointing pistol towards Sona and her brothers. The present accused is main accused who allegedly committed murder of Naresh by strangulation. It may also be mentioned that trial of the remaining accused who were major has been completed in S.T. No. 580 of 2002 and co-accused Roop, Swaroop and Kunwar have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 1.5.2003. They preferred appeal in this Court and have been granted bail by this Court. Now it is to be seen that if the present accused revisionist is released on bail the possibility of the revisionist's coming into contact with co-accused who are his brothers cannot be ruled out. It may also be mentioned that those co-accused have been convicted and so now they have come within the definition of the term 'known criminal' and they shall be treated as such unless and until their appeal is allowed and they are acquitted.
13. It is also to be seen that though the accused revisionist was juvenile on the date of incident, yet all the prosecution witnesses are also of tender age, and their age is less than that of the accused revisionist. There is no adult member in the family of the prosecution witnesses as their father is employed at Panipat and their mother had left the house. Under these circumstances, if the accused revisionist is released on bail, he would come into contact with his brothers, who are co-accused and have been convicted in the case and then the possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence by them and threatening the prosecution witnesses of tender age cannot be ruled out. As such, release of the applicant revisionist on bail is likely to defeat the ends of justice also.
14. A perusal of the order passed by the courts below goes to show that prayer for bail of the accused revisionist was rejected by them on the above grounds also. Bail can be refused to juvenile on these grounds as provided in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The courts below thus committed no error by rejecting the bail application of the accused revisionist.
15. The rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the revisionist do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Rajendra cited above there was nothing on record to show that the case was within the ambit of any exception on which bail can be refused. Section 12 of the Act was applicable to his case and so bail was granted to him In the case of Deepak Kumar the courts below had rejected the bail application without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and so that order was set aside. Vikky alias Vikram Singh's bail had been refused on the ground that if he is granted bail, that would have adverse effect upon the juvenile. It was held that it was not a ground for refusing bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the Act and so bail was granted. In the case of Achal Singh alias Sheru bail had been refused without considering the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid Section 12 and so bail was granted. In the case of Soni (referred to above) no inquiry had been made as to whether the accused was juvenile and so the matter was remanded for making an inquiry on the point and then to decide the bail application in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act.
16. The position, in this way, is that the aforesaid rulings do not render any support to the accused revisionist in whose case there is possibility to this effect that after release on bail he may come into contact with his brothers who have been convicted in this very case and with them he may threaten prosecution witnesses who are of more tender age than the accused revisionist and have got no protection of any adult guardian and in this way prosecution evidence may be tampered with and in such a circumstance interest of justice may be defeated. The courts below in this way have committed no error by rejecting the bail applications of the accused revisionist.
17. The revision in this way has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
18. The revision is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura is confirmed.