Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3696 of 2019 Revisionist :- Tarun Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Komal Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Shri Komal Pandey, learned counsel from the side of revisionist, Shri Shri Vivek Kumar, learned counsel from the side of the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 with prayer to quash the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in Second Bail Application No. 2165 of 2019 (Tarun Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 174 of 2018 under Sections 323, 307, 302, 394, 34 of IPC, Police Station Agauta, District Bulandshahar whereby the bail application of the applicant has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made that the revisionist may be enlarged on bail in aforesaid case.
Submission of learned counsel is that the present accused Tarun Sharma has been declared juvenile and his age was found to be between 16 to 18 years and his trial was separated and sent to the POCSO Court.
As per the FIR version which was lodged on 10.09.2018 by complainant Kailash Chand Sharma, on 10.09.2018 at about 06:20 P.M. his nephew Jitendra had gone to the field along with his two friends namely Prabhat and Sukhdarshan and Shiv Kumar, Ashok and others were having enmity with his nephew Jitendra and when the nephew of complainant was going towards the field, then, riding on two motorcycles Shiv Kumar and Ashok son of Murari Lal and Tarun son of Shiv Kumar and one unknown person came and they fired at the head of his nephew Jitendra. His nephew succumbed to the head injuries caused by accused persons and thus died on spot.
Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the accused is a minor and is in jail since 24.10.2018 and only role of catching hold was attributed to the present accused, which is not possible when firing took place. He has further submitted that nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the pointing out of the present accused (juvenile).
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant 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 applicant.
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.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the accused juvenile is involved in a very heinous offence of murder in which an innocent man was brutally murdered and he has further submitted that in case of the juvenile being released on bail, he will be a heinous and hardened criminal for the society.
After considering the rival submissions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit and necessary to allow this revision.The orders impugned in this revision are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the revisionist is granted bail.
It is provided that the mother of the revisionist will give an undertaking that he will care for his well-being.
Let revisionist Tarun Sharma 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) The revisionist be given into custody of his mother.
(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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 :- 27.11.2019 LBY