Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1685 of 2020 Revisionist :- Ram Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anil Kumar,Mohit Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgement and order dated 10.9.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2020; Ram Babu Vs. State of U.P. whereby criminal appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed as well as for quashing the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi whereby the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2019, under Section-376 (2) (i) I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of POCSO Act, P. S.-Kokhraj, district- Kaushambi has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the impugned orders as well as material placed on record.
The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 20.3.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 14.8.2020 on the ground that his release on bail is likely to bring him into association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred an appeal before Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi which was rejected vide order dated 10.09.2020, hence this revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Board has rejected the bail application on the basis of surmises and conjecture whereas the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. There was nothing on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:
12. Bail of juvenile. - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non- bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear 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."
The aforesaid 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. No such report was filed by the Probation Officer or the police so as to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.The report of the District Probation Officer was only to the effect that the parents of the revisionist have no control over the accused-revisionist and he requires proper guidance and supervision. There is nothing on record to show that 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 on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB).
In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist.
Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
This revision is allowed. The order dated order dated dated 10.9.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2020; Ram Babu Vs. State of U.P. whereby criminal appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed as well as the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi whereby the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2019, under Section-376 (2) (i) I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of POCSO Act, P. S.-Kokhraj, district-Kaushambi, are set aside.
Let the revisionist- Ram Babu (minor) involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his father's executing a personal bond with two solvent/reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi with the condition that he will keep the revisionist in his proper care and custody.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 HR