Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2401 of 2018 Revisionist :- Udham Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Daga,Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
None appears despite service is complete.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 12.7.2018 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.09, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2018 (Udham Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another), arising out of order dated 15.5.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura in Case Crime No. 364 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B and 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Magorrah, District- Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 17 years of age. It is then stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further stated that the applicant was not involved in causing that fire arm injuries. He has good academic record having secured 75% marks in Class 10th and 85% marks in Class 12th Board Examination. It is further stated that though earlier the applicant had falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, there does not exist any material on record that may lead to any inference that the applicant is prone to any criminal proclivity or has criminal psychology.
Further reference has been made to the fact that though the allegation was made against the four accused persons in the FIR of having causing fire arm injuries that was found to be false inasmuch as the police has charged only the applicant and one named Raju and that argument sought to be advanced that the prosecution case is based on a complete false grounds. In this context it has been submitted that the applicant has remained confined for more than one and half year, since 25.12.2016.
Last, it has been submitted that the father of the applicant has given his undertaking to ensure that neither the applicant will misuse the liberty of bail nor he would allow the applicant to involve himself with any anti social elements.
It is then submitted though the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home since 25.12.2016 that there is no specific objection raised in the DPO report as it does not contain any specific or strong objection against the applicant, other than general and vague observations.
Further, 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.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order dated 12.7.2018 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
Let the applicant Udham Singh 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 applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicant 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 applicant 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 :- 30.8.2018 Gaurav Pal