Counter-Affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A. and the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Criminal Revision has been directed against the judgement and order dated 27.10.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act Ist/Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2020 whereby dismissing the appeal, the order dated 24.09.2020 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur has been upheld. By order dated 24.09.2020, Juvenile Justice Board had rejected the bail application of the accused revisionist in Case Crime No. 96 of 2020 under Section 302, 392 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Newadia, District Jaunpur.
As per F.I.R. lodged by Ram Jeet Maurya, his younger brother, Shiv Jeet Maurya was living in a rented accommodation and was running a shop of jewellery. On the date of occurrence at 18:40 hours when he closed the shop and reached Newada, two unknown assailants had opened fire upon him by which he died and his bag containing Rs. 100,000/- and some jewellery was also looted. In post-mortem report, two ante-mortem wounds i.e. one entry and one exit were found to be the cause of death of the deceased.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that he is innocent; his name has come during investigation as the person involved giving effect to this occurrence. During investigation, in statement of Dhenu Singh, he has stated that co-accused, Lav and Vipin were friends of accused revisionist. It is stated that confessional statement has been recorded of the accused revisionist in which he has stated that co-accused, Lav had called him by contacting on mobile phone outside the village near Pokhra and there, co-accused, Lav, Mogli and Deepak were present; Fire was made by Lav by his pistol by which deceased received injuries who was stopped for the purpose of being looted after indicating to stop; he had no knowledge about the fact that co-accused, Lav would give effect to this occurrence. No incriminating article pertaining to this occurrence has been recovered from him except some money which is not connected to this offence. Apart from merits, applicant is found to be 14 years 10 months and 22 days old as per the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 16.09.2020, copy of which is annexed at page nos. 60-61 of the paper book, therefore, he wold fall in the category of Juvenile below 16 years and cannot be punished for more than three years' detention. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards the report of District Probation Officer which contains nothing adverse against the applicant as no criminal antecedents are found of the revisionist.
Having drawn attention towards these facts, it is argued that Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Board have rejected the Bail Application of the revisionist only on the ground of offence being serious in nature not taking into consideration the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000 which provides that the bail of the juvenile can be dismissed only if the court satisfies itself that release of the accused on bail would bring him in association with known criminal or that it would expose him into moral, physical or psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. Without any material collected by the prosecution to that effect, the bail has been arbitrarily rejected merely on the ground that it found the offence of grave nature which is alleged to have been committed by the accused revisionist.
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. Both the orders of the Appellate Court and Juvenile Justice Board deserve to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Shivanand Singh @ Baba be released on bail in the aforementioned Case No. & the Sections on his father, Amrish @ Chaturi Singh furnishing a personal bond 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 :- 21.1.2021 A. Mandhani