Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2110 of 2017 Revisionist :- Raj @ Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 16.5.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2017 dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 2.5.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No. 809/2016, under Sections 364A, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, district Mathura rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
It is contended by counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile in conflict with law and his age was determined to be 14 and half years on the date of incident. He has drawn attention towards the report of the District Probation officer in which he has opined that the company with the friends of the revisionist is right, beside it he has observed that the revisionist is student of class-9th and his father also undertaken that he shall take full care and precaution that in future his son does not involve in any such activity. He has further opined that there appears necessity of administrative control so that future of the revisionist is not spoiled. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there is no thing adverse in the report of District Probation Officer which falls within the parameter of section 12 of the Act warranting refusal of bail by the court below.
It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 15.08.2016 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.
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 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 said 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 revisionists. 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 2.5.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura as well as 16.5.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Mathura are set-aside.
The revisionist, Raj @ Monu son of Sri Shyamveer Singh, resident of Varun Vihar Colony, Saukh Road, P.S. Highway, District Mathura, involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No., 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 :- 22.2.2018 Dhirendra/