Heard Sri Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh,, learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2020 (Sanju Bhati vs State of U.P. and another) dismissing the appeal preferred by revisionist and confirming the judgment and order dated 22.07.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat dismissing the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.135 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Sanju Bhati) under section 302 IPC, Police Station Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat.
As per FIR, which has been lodged by Dharamvir, the prosecution case is that on 28.04.2018 his uncle's son Monu (deceased) was found in dead condition with the stole around his neck and then he had given an application at the police station but when he returned to village, he was told by his nephew Deepak and and son Arun that when they had brought straw in a buggi in the night at about 2.45 A.M., they had seen the accused coming out of the house of the deceased along with his two companions. There was illicit relation between the wife of the deceased i.e. Deepa and the accused-revisionist and because of that only the revisionist had killed the deceased Monu. In post-mortem report, the cause of death is recorded as asphyxia as a result of strangulation though hyoid bone is found not fractured. The deceased was found to have sustained as many as six injuries on his body.
Submission made by the learned counsel for revisionist is that the revisionist is innocent. There is no concrete evidence gathered by the police/Investigating Officer against him except the statements of two witnesses i.e. Arun and Deepak who are son and nephew of the informant respectively and both of them have stated the same version that they had seen the revisionist coming out of the house of the deceased Monu at about 2.45 A.M.. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the revisionist. The co-accused Vishal and Abhishek have been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 38709 of 2018, copy of the same is annexed at page 61-62 of the paper book and the co-accused Deepa has also been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.11.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application NO.44045 of 2018, copy of the same has been annexed at pages 17-18 of the rejoinder affidavit. The age of the accused-revisionist has been determined between 16-18 years as per the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 16.3.2020, copy of which has been filed today through rejoinder affidavit and the same is annexed at pages 12 to 15 of the rejoinder affidavit. Further it is argued by him that as per section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile is required to be released on bail if there appears that his release is not likely to bring him in association with some known criminal or that he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. He has also drawn attention to the report of District Probation Officer, Baghpat, which is annexed at pages 5 to 15 of the supplementary affidavit, in which he was found to have passed B.A. Part-I and there is no evidence against him collected by the prosecution to indicate that he was having any criminal antecedent nor is there any such evidence gathered that in case he is released on bail, he would come in association with known criminal. It is argued that nothing adverse has been mentioned by the District Probation Officer against the revisionist. All these facts have been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court, hence the revisionist deserves to be allowed on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the release of revisionist on bail.
In consideration of bail of a juvenile, the seriousness of the offence is not to be seen. The three considerations which are laid down in law, are that his release on bail should not bring him in association with any hardened criminal or that it should not expose him to any moral, physical or psychological threat or ends of justice should not be defeated by his release. No evidence has been produced before the courts below which could lead them to draw those conclusions. Both the courts have dismissed the bail application of the accused only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and on the nature of offence being serious.
Looking to the fact that the revisionist is found to be a juvenile between the age of 16-18 years in conflict with law at the time of occurrence and nothing having been found against him in the report of District Probation Officer, hence this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail.
In view of above, this court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 22.07.2020 as well as order dated 01.10..2020 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist-Sanju Bhati (Minor) be released on bail during trial on his father Roopram furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board with condition that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and that on each and every date of trial, he shall also appear before the court concerned. In case, he makes any default, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 AU