Allahabad High Court
Umesh vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 8 August, 2011
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2426 of 2011
Petitioner :- Umesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- R.B. Singh,A.K. Srivastava,K.S.Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Ali Hasan
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
This revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur in criminal juvenile appeal no. 46 of 2011 and order dated 3.5.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in case crime no.129A of 2011 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, PS Machhli Shahar, District Jaunpur whereby the application for bail of revisionist Umesh was rejected.
The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case. He was declared juvenile in conflict with law. The application for bail was rejected by the Board on the ground that the revisionist was named in the FIR and the offence was of grave nature.
The revisionist filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, which was rejected. Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned orders.
Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Board rejected the bail on the basis of surmises and conjectures, whereas the gravity of the offence was not a relevant consideration. 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. Co-accused Samar Bahadur Yadav, Vijay Bahadur Yadav, Panna Lal Yadav, Ram Chander Yadav, Dharamraj Yadav and Shambhu Yadav have alreadyd been granted bail by orders dated 29.4.2011 and 27.5.2011 passed by this Court.
Section 12 (1) of the Act provides 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. There is no evidence on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act. 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, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB). Adult co-accused have already been granted bail by the High Court on the ground of cross-case.
The Board does not seem to have any idea of provisions of Section 12 of the Act. 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. Impugned order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the Board and order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge are set-aside.
The revisionist Umesh son of Kishori Lal, resident of Village Kadanpur, PS Kotwali Machhli Sahar, District Jaunpur involved in case crime no. 129 A of 2011 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, PS Machhli Sahar, District Jaunpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian - father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 8.8.2011
KU
