Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2881 of 2017 Revisionist :- Parmanand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj, in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2017 (Parmanand vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 6.6.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj, in Criminal Misc. basil Application No.18 of 2017 (State Vs. Parmanand) arising out of Case Crime No.565 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 302, 323, 326, 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Brijmangani, District Maharajganj, rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Despite service of notice personally on opposite party no.2, as per report of the office dated 9.10.2017, no one has appeared on his behalf.
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 a juvenile in conflict with law and his age to be determined as sixteen years five months. It is argued that there is nothing adverse in the report of District Probation Officer regarding criminal antecedent or otherwise. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the other named accused Shyam Sunder and Sachchdanand, who are major, have been allowed bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.7.2017 and 31.7.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. bail Application nos.4556 of 2017 & 19372 of 2017, copies of the said order has been produced, which is taken on record. It is submitted that the revisionist is in custody since 16.11.2016.
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 as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 27.7.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj, in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2017 (Parmanand vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 6.6.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj, in Criminal Misc. basil Application No.18 of 2017 (State Vs. Parmanand) arising out of Case Crime No.565 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 302, 323, 326, 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Brijmangani, District Maharajganj, are set-aside.
The revisionist, Parmanand, son of Shyam Sunder, r/o village Koiladad, P.S. Brijmanganj District Maharajganj through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Manju Devi wife of Shyam Sunder, 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 :- 30.3.2018 Hasnain