Allahabad High Court
Anil vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 27 October, 2014
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2764 of 2013
Revisionist :- Anil
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena,Bhaskar Bhadra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.K. Shukla
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
List is revised. Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the revisionist is present. Despite appearance of Sri AK Shukla no one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
This revision under section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is directed against order dated 28.9.2013 passed by learned Session Judge , Auraiya in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2013 under section 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Anil Vs. State in dismissing the said appeal and confirming the order dated 13.9.2013 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya in Case Crime No. 43 of 2013, under Sections 376, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya rejecting the bail application of revisionist (Juvenile).
Learned counsel for revisionist has contended that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any basis or material giving finding that if the revisionist is released, he is likely to bring him into association with any criminal and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, hence his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is also submitted that report of the District Probation Officer, Auraiya not recommending the release of revisionist, is without any basis. It is further submitted that the gravity of offence is not a criteria for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act and moreover, the revisionist is in custody since 15.3.2013, as is stated in paragraph no. 14 of the affidavit.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act, which 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 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 basis or material which may bring the case of revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act. There is also no material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, 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 juvenile is in custody for more than 1 and a half year. The gravity of an offence is not the criteria for rejection of bail.
In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge has also not 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 is allowed. The orders dated 28.9.2013 passed by learned Session Judge , Auraiya in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2013 and order dated 13.9.2013 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya in Case Crime No. 43 of 2013, under Sections 376, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya are set aside.
The revisionist - Anil son of Veerendra Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2013, under Sections 376, 506/34 IPC, PS Achhalda, District Auraiya be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his natural guardian and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 27.10.2014
SKS
