Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3577 of 2017 Revisionist :- Umesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge,Etah in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2017 (Umesh vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 23.9.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.387 of 2017, under Sections 452 and 376D I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District-Etah rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that solely on the basis of gravity and nature of the offence, the courts below have rejected the bail application of the revisionist. It is further contended that neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has considered the parameters laid down under Section of 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act which are warranted for refusal of bail. No finding regarding three clauses as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act has been recorded. It is well settled that bail to a juvenile in conflict with law can not be denied on the ground of gravity and nature of the offence. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also touched the merits of the case and submitted that there is no allegation of rape against the revisionist. Besides it, the revisionist is the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the prosecutrix and there exists enmity between the parties over property. The revisionist is in custody since 10.7.2017.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.
I find that there is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionists. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 23.9.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah and order dated 11.10.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge,Etah are set-aside.
The revisionist,Umesh son of Prem Pal resident of Nagla Kanchan, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Etah, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 MN/-