1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 8.4.2021 passed in Crl. Appeal No.10 of 2021, by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri and order dated 26.3.2021, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri in Crl. Case No.17 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.141/2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Fardhan, district Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State as also Mr. Sriram Verma, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Uma Kant, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisionist is a juvenile as declared by the Juvenile Justice Board and on the date of offence, i.e. on 8.4.2020, his age was below 18 years. The District Probation Officer found that presently, he has attained the age of 18 years. The mental and physical condition of the revisionist has been found to be sound. No adverse report against the revisionist has been given by the District Probation Officer. The revisionist is in jail since 11.4.2020.
It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act.
It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined that the physical and mental condition of the revisionist is sound.
It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgment and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2019 Kuldeep Vishwakarma (Minor) through his father Swami Nath versus State of U.P. and another.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.
5. Having considered the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and the favourable report of the District Probation Officer as also the legal proposition in reference to Section 12 as also Section 3(i)(iv)(v) and (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, I am of the considered view that the learned lower court has committed material irregularity in arriving at the conclusion that the release of the revisionist on bail will defeat the ends of justice and it is likely to bring him into association with criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
6.Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 8.4.2021 (supra) and order dated 26.3.2021(supra) are set aside and the revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri subject to the condition that parent of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities, as also in case there is no legal impediment. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021 kkb/