Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1844 of 2021 Revisionist :- Shubham Saroha @ Honey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Anjali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Despite service of notice none appears from the side of opposite party no. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record..
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act) (Exclusive Court Baghpat), in Appeal No. 4 of 2021 (Subham Saroha vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 05.04.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat, in Case Crime No. 972 of 2020, under section 302, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Badaut, District Baghpat, whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court have passed the impugned orders erroneously by which they have rejected the application of bail of the accused-revisionist, who is a minor and his age was 11 years 2 months and 4 days as per the determination of age made by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 17.02.2021. The accused-revisionist is languishing in jail since 11.11.2020, the outer limit for which the accused can be punished for the offence is only three years. He further submitted that the revisionist is not named in the FIR. The name of the revisionist has come into the light during investigation in additional statement of complainant.
Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that although in the District Probation Officer report, it has also been stated that there is no control of parent over the juvenile, however, it has also been stated that juvenile needs proper protection.
Per contra learned AGA opposed the above submission and contended that the informant Subham Tomar did not name the revisionist in the FIR. The report of District Probation Officer is against the juvenile. He further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board had determined the age of the juvenile and found him to be a minor below 12 years.
From perusal of the record it is clear that the revisionist was not named in the FIR. The complainant did not disclose the name of revisionist in his first statement, but later on subsequently he has disclosed the name of revisionist in the additional statement, for the first time. So far as the statement of eyewitness Sandeep is concerned, his statement was recorded on 18.12.2020 nearly more than 40 days of the alleged incident Revisionist is below 12 years of age as per the age determination order of the Juvenile Justice Board. A perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that both the forum below have rejected the bail application of the accused-revisionist and they have not taken into consideration the mandatory provision of grant of bail as provided under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (Amended) Act 2015 wherein it is laid-down that the bail could be refused to the accused-juvenile only when he is likely to come into association with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. No such evidence appears to be there on record, collected by the prosecution side including that of social investigation report which would indicate evidence to above effect.
In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 05.04.2021 as well as order dated 02.07.2021 of the appellate court are set aside.
Let the Juvenile revisionist- Shubham Saroha @ Honey be released on bail on his father Sri Sanjiv Kumar furnishing a personal bond of Rs. one lac and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board on furnishing an undertaking that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and shall take care of his education and well being 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 :- 29.9.2021 v.k.updh.