Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4194 of 2018 Revisionist :- Vikash Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Rudra Kant Mishra,Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Rudra Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of the present revision, the revisionist prays for setting aside the order dated 1.9.2018 passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2018 (Vikash Maurya Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 4.08.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonebhadra in Misc. No.33 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikash Maurya) arising out of Case Crime No.208 of 2018, under Section 8 of 21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist has been declared juvenile by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board on 21.7.2018, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 2 of the affidavit. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the said revisionist preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court and the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra was dismissed the appeal vide order dated 1.9.2018. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Court, the present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist. It is next argued that the Court below while passing the impugned order refusing the bail of revisionist, failed to consider that there was no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act by the prosecution. The applicant is in jail since 17.4.2018 and has no criminal antecedents of N.D.P.S. Act.
Not only this, the learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to those three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which reads thus:-
(a). If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that persons into association with any known criminal.
(b). Expose the said persons to moral, physical or psychological danger.
(c) The person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
If any of these factors is available, the bail could be denied. There is no material on record or in the DPO, pointing out that case of the revisionist falls in any of the above mentioned condition.
Let the revisionist Vikash Maurya through natural guardian father, Ram Pravesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra with an undertaking that in case the revisionist is released on bail and is given his custody he will not create any situation which will bring the revisionist into association with any known criminal or expose to him moral, physical and psychological danger or any situation when the revisionist may repeat the offence in question and he will work for improvement of the revisionist.
Accordingly, the present revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Neeraj