Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2788 of 2019 Revisionist :- Yatendra @ Atendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Singh Sengar
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge,Etah in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2019, dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Member, 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 Sri Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shyam Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 nephew (Bhanja) of the prosecutrix and there exists enmity between the parties over property. The revisionist is in custody since 28.08.2017.It is further argued that similarly placed co-accused,namely, Vishal and Umesh who are brother-in-law (Dewar) of the prosecutrix have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 3578 of 2017 and 3577 of 2017 vide orders dated 26.02.2018. Therefore, the revisionist may also be released on bail.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Vishal and Umesh against whom similar allegation of gang-rape has been made and they were also declared juvenile in conflict with law, have been granted bail by this Court.
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 29.01.2019 passed by Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Etah and order dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge,Etah are set-aside.
The revisionist, Yatendra @ Atendra son of Karan Singh resident of Village and Police Station Dholna, District-Kasganj, 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 :- 26.11.2019 MN/-