Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3569 of 2019 Revisionist :- Prince Singh Alias Himanshu Singh (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order 12.09.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2019 (Prince Singh @ Himanshu Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 20.08.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Bail Application of revisionist, arising out of Case Crime No. 336 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Khajni, District-Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the accused revisionist was about 14 years of age at the time of the incident and being minor he has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. Further submission is that in the First Information Report general role of assaulting was assigned to all the accused persons and the deceased has received only one incised wound over occipital region covering both parietal. It is also being submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that during the investigation this accused has been assigned the role of exhortation. It is also argued argued that the revisionist is languishing in jail since 22.12.2018. The revisionist has no criminal history and DPO report is in his favour.
Thereafter assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is not in dispute that the applicant 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 applicant.
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.
From perusal of record it is evident that the District Probation Officer has submitted his report dated 19.08.2019 in the Lower Court and mentioned in his report that there is low control over juvenile Prince by his parents and he needs proper care and there are chances of exposing him to moral, physical and psychological danger.
Learned counsel for revisionist has further submitted that there is no criminal background of the present accused.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist Prince Singh alias Himanshu Singh (Minor) 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 revisionist be given into custody of his father;
(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The revisionist 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; and
(iv) The revisionist 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 :- 27.11.2019 LBY