Court No. - 60
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 836 of 2017 Revisionist :- Shravan (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey,Irshad Saleem,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
The instant revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2017 (Shravan Vs. State of U.P.) by which the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor in Misc Case No.33 of 2016 arising out of in Case Crime No.179 of 2016 (State of Shravan) under Sections 302, 201B IPC, P.S. Nehtaur, District Bijnor has been affirmed rejecting the custody application of the juvenile revisionist Shravan.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor on 03.11.2016, which was not challenged by opposite party no. 2 before any Court of law. It has been submitted that the maximum sentence under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, is 3 years whereas the revisionist is in jail since 21.4.2016. It has been submitted that the revisionist has already served out 2 years & 8 months of the sentence awarded to him and he has no criminal history.
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 dated 02.02.2017 and 17.12.2016 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 could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor and order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Shravan involved in Case Crime No.179 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201B IPC Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor 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) The revisionist 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 :- 30.10.2018 Junaid