Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 272 of 2021 Revisionist :- Vijay Prajapati @ Sulai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Janardan Yadav,Dinesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
This revision is directed against impugned judgement and order dated 22.12.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO Act),Court No.2, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2020 CNR No.UPAZO10066162020 (Vijay Prajapati @ Sulai Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in Case Crime No.132 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Vijay Prajapati @ Sulai was rejected.
It is very surprising that result of inquiry has been submitted by Vinay Kant, Social Worker, Zila Bal Sanrakshan Ekai, Azamgarh and District Probationary Officer has not even signed on the said report, though covering letter dated 24.11.2020 has been sent by District Probation Officer, Azamgarh Sri B.L. Yadav to Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board,Azamgarh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that report submitted by Social Worker, Zila Bal Sanrakshan Ekai, Azamgarh and communicated by District Probationary Officer can not be disbelieved at this stage.
The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 04.111.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 05.12.2020 on the ground that his release on bail is likely to bring him into association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge,Allahabad which was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2020, hence this revision.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders as well as material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Board has rejected the bail application on the basis of surmises and conjecture whereas the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. There was nothing on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:
12. Bail of juvenile. - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
The aforesaid provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. No such report was filed by the Probation Officer or the police so as to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.The report of the District Probation Officer was only to the effect that the parents of the revisionist have no control over the accused-revisionist and he requires proper guidance and supervision. There is nothing on record to show that 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 on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB).
In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist.
Learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set- aside.
Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO Act),Court No.2, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2020 CNR No.UPAZO10066162020 (Vijay Prajapati @ Sulai Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh in Case Crime No.132 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh are set aside.
Let the revisionist-Vijay Prajapati @ Sulai involved aforesaid case be released on bail on his father executing a personal bond with two solvent/reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh with the condition that he will keep the revisionist in his proper care and custody and will constantly contact his school management, if he continues with the studies and will report to the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh once in a two months regarding the progress made by the revisionist..
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 MN/-