Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2121 of 2018 Revisionist :- Shivraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
None appears despite service of notice.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 9.5.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Aligarh in Crl. Appeal No.26 of 2018 (Shivraj Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as against the bail rejection order dated 27.1.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh in Misc. Case No.170/2017 (State Vs. Shiv Raj) Crime No.88 of 2017, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and that at the time of alleged incident, he was about 15 years and 6 months of age. It is then stated that revisionist is suffering from locomotor handicap and that he has been falsely implicated though neither he had been apprehended on the spot nor any recovery had been made from him. The FIR was itself against unknown persons and the revisionist has been falsely implicated on the basis of fabricated recovery shown from him of a screw driver. It is also submitted that the revisionist has no criminal history and DPO report is in his favour still the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation home for long since 14.4.2017.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has already been declared juvenile.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is 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 him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.
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 him 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 9.5.2018 and 27.1.2018 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Shivraj involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) There shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 29.8.2018/Meenu