Court No. - 55
Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 1 of 2018 IN Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4161 of 2016 Revisionist :- Vikas Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
This is an application for correction of order dated 9.7.2018.
It is admitted amongst the learned counsel for the parties that wrong order has been transcribed and therefore, order dated 9.7.2018 is recalled and in its place fresh order is being passed, which is as under :
"This revision under Sections 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is directed against the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2016 (Vikash Sharma Vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 27.5.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Crime No. 28/2016, under Sections 376, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS-Meja, District-Allahabad 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 the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer, in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dexit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody and that period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
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.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.
"The said 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act."
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 27.5.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad as well as 29.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Allahabad are set- aside.
The revisionist, Vikas Sharma son of Ram Chandra Sharma resident of Village Kardaha, P.S. Meja, district-Allahabad, involved in the aforesaid Crime No. 28 of 2016, 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."
Correction application is disposed off, accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Faridul