1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Mishra, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. By means of present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad, U/s -12and judgment and order dated 28.03.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 33 of 2018 (Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh Vs. State of U.P.) U/s 101 arising out of case Crime No. 02 of 2018 U/s 302 I.P.C., P.S. haidarganj, District - Faizabad.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that the revisionist is in jail since 02.01.2018 and he has spent more than 03 years and 01 month in jail despite the fact that even if he was convicted of the offences charged, the maximum period prescribed is 03 years. He has also submitted that no adverse material has been brought forth in the report submitted by the District Probationary Officer. According to the report of Probationary Officer, the revisionist is a student of class 11 and there are good chances of reform of the revisionist.
4. It has been submitted that despite the fact that the chargesheet has been filled and the charges have not been framed and there is no hope of the trial concluding any time soon. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") provides that bail may be considered to a child. Section 18 of the Act provides that the child below the age of 16 years, if has committed a heinous offence, may be kept in custody in a Home for a period of three years. In the present case, the revisionist is in jail for nearly two years and six months.
5. The revision has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for complainant who submits that it was a serious offence for which the applicant is charged with but could not dispute the fact that the applicant is being incarcerated in prison for a period more than maximum period prescribed even if he convicted for the offences charged with.
6. Learned AGA has, however, submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Authority both have not found the case of the present revisionist for granting bail. However, so far as the the provisions of Section 12 of the Act are concerned and the report of Probationary Officer is concerned, he has nothing to say.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, age of the accused-revisionist and the period of incarceration of the accused-revisionist, I find it a fit case to grant bail.
8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and orders dated 28.03.2018 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside.
9. Thus, the revision is allowed.
10. Let the accused-revisionist (Sheetal Singh @ Chahat Singh), accused of the above-mentioned crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions, which are imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) That guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon released on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to get into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and he will make best effort for improvement of juvenile.
(ii) That the revisionist and his guardian shall remain present before the Board/trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Ravi/