HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1897 of 2015 Revisionist :- Rahul Yadav @ Sipahi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma,Mithilesh Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of revisionists is taken on record.
2. Heard Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisinist, Sri Mishilesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant Criminal Revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2000') has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.5, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal no. 09 of 2015 ? Rahul Yadav Vs. State of U.P., by which the order dated 27.01.2015, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist, in Case Crime No. 170 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station ? Rewatipur, District - Ghazipur, has been affirmed and revisionist is denied bail.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that:
4.1. It is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile in conflict with law in respect of Case Crime No. 170 of 2014, and is in custody since 20.12.2014. He is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act, 2000.
4.2. Under Section 12 of Act, 2000 prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected only 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice', while in present case no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.
4.3. Only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Act, 2000 and it has been a consistent view of various courts.
4.4. The prosecutrix, Neha, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has stated that she has gone with revisionist on her own free will and she desires to live with him.
5. Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed prayer for bail but they could not demonstrate from the record that there exist any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of Act, 2000.
6. It is settled law that bail of Juvenile in conflict with law may be rejected only on the ground mentioned in Section 12 of Act, 2000 and not only on the ground of gravity of offence.
7. In case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others [Manupatra (MANU/SCOR/03635/2015)], considering the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur to the effect that on the basis of his date of birth 10.04.1964, he (Karnail Singh ? appellant) was under the category of juvenile on 26.10.1980 i.e. the date of incident. Hon'ble Apex Court Court said in it's order dated 9.7.2015 :
"In view of the aforesaid categorical finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, the petitioner-Karnail Singh is required to be enlarged on bail under Section 12 of the Act. Accordingly, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the court in sessions of the matter."
8. In the cases of Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Ohers [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203] and Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 02.07.2015, this Court has also expressed view that seriousness of offences is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile and has granted bail to the juvenile offenders in the cases of henious offences.?
9. Having considered the rival submissions raised on behalf of parties, material available on record and discussions made above, I am of the view that, learned Courts below have ignored the provisions of Section 12 of Act, 2000 and while rejecting bail of juvenile revisionist, have mainly placed reliance on seriousness of offence.
10. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 04.04.2015 and 27.01.2015, passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, Ghazipur and the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur, respectively are hereby set aside.
11. Let revisionist Rahul Yadav @ Sipahi be released on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station ? Rewatipur, District - Ghazipur on furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf? of revisionist by his leagal guardian/father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions :-
(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Juvenile Justice Board that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Juvenile Justice Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Juvenile Justice Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 29.7.2015 SA