Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1536 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ramanand @ Ramanandan And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Arimardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and impugned order dated 21.2.2019 passed by Session Judge, Kasganj in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2019 (Ramanand @ Ramanandan and another Vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 4.1.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj in Criminal Case No.36 of 2018 (State Vs. Ramanand @ Ramanandan and another), arising out of Case Crime No.357 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that admittedly the applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 were a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident being 12 years and 13 years of age. He further submitted that the entire family has been roped in this incident and the mother of the accused has already been granted bail by the another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4642 of 2019 decided on 5.2.2019, copy whereof has been annexed on page 66 of the paper book. He further submitted that the applicants have remained confined in the child observation home since 3.8.2018.
Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that it is not in dispute that the applicants are 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 them into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release wound defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the applicants.
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 them 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.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 21.2.2019 and 4.1.2019 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
Let the applicants Ramanand @ Ramanandan and Jainandan involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicants through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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;
(iii) The applicants through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 R./