Ankit Babu Sharma (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 27 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

									A.F.R. 			
 
							Reserved on 17.04.2015
 
							Delivered on  20.04.2015.
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2701 of 2014
 

 
Revisionist :- Ankit Babu Sharma (Minor)
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Tahir Husain
 

 
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A appearing for the State. I have also heard Sri Tahir Husain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.

2. Revisionist Ankit Babu Sharma, a juvenile in conflict with law, has preferred instant criminal revision under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the Act 2000) against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kannauj, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2014, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and upheld the order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj in Case Crime No. 533 of 2013 under Section 302 and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act registered at P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj where bail prayer of the revisionist stood rejected

3 At the outset a brief resume of background facts in nutshell are that: No one named in the first information report of triple murder case which was lodged by the informant-Pati Ram Katheria on 24.12.2013 at Case Crime No. 533 of 2013 under Section 302 I.P.C. P.S. Saurikh, District-Kannauj stating therein that his brother Rati Ram, Sreedevi wife of Rati Ram and one villager-Chhammilal were murdered by a sharp cutting weapons when they were sleeping near the road on the veranda of his house. It has come to the notice of Investigating Officer that a criminal litigation between the informant and Ram Prakash Sharma father of the revisionist is pending and there was an illicit relationship between the deceased Rati Ram and Ram Beti mother of the revisionist. It has also come to his notice that on 24.12.2012 at about 1.57 am to 2.00 P.M, there had been conversation between Mobile No. 8574775617 belonging to the Sanjay Sharma and Mobile No. 8290470522 belonging to Ajay Sharma brother of the revisionist. The police on the basis of suspicion arrested the revisionist and one Ram Asre. Statement of the revisionist under Section 161 was recorded by the police in which he confessed that one year ago Rati Ram had enticed away his mother and a false case was also registered by Rati Ram against his family members and in that case brothers of revisionist, namely, Sanjay and Ajit were incarcerated in jail on 27.11.2013. Revisionist was not happy with the act of Rati Ram and when his two brothers returned home on releasing from jail on 21.12.2013, revisionist, his brothers and uncle prepared a plan to settle the score. At about 11.30 P.M. (night), they armed with axes proceeded to reach the place where deceased were sleeping. They reached the said placed, assaulted with their axes and committed three murders. On the pointing out of the revisionist and one other co-accused, the Mobile No. 8574775617 and axe are shown to be recovered.

4. After his apprehension revisionist claimed juvenility through an application that on the day of incident he was juvenile. Ensued inquiry for such a claim, by the revisionist, concluded by assessing his age to be 15 years 10 months and 22 days and thereby accepting his claim of juvenility vide order dated 24.05.2014.

5. Since revisionist was adjudged juvenile he moved to the Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj, for being released on bail in aforesaid crime but the Board had rejected his prayer for bail on 25.06.2014, by observing that the mother of the revisionist had no control over him and there is no mention that in case the revisionist is released on bail he would not involve in unlawful assembly, consequently his release on bail will defeat the ends of justice as his case falls within one of the exception reasons engrafted U/S 12 of the Act where under bail to a juvenile in conflict with law can be refused.

6. Revisionist filed a Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2014 challenging the order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board before learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, where by the appellate court dismissed the appeal vide it's order dated 23.07.2014 and upheld the judgement and order of the Board. Hence this revision.

7. On the above input facts, I have heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. in opposition.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law and totally against the provisions of law. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the revisionist is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 clearly provides that if the revisionist is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2000. The revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the revisionist in the present case. The revisionist is in custody since 31.12.2013 and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile-revisionist is released on bail, then his 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 ends of justice. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the appellant/revisionist. He further contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures.

9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the revisionist as well as the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. He further submited that revisionist has admitted that he was in the company of committing triple murder. if the petitioner-juvenile is released on bail, then his 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 ends of justice

10. I have considered rival submissions and have perused the record. Bail prayer of a juvenile in conflict with law has to be considered in accordance with provisions contained under Section 12 of the Act reproduced as under:-

"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.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

11. Aforesaid section no where ordains that bail to a juvenile is a must in all cases as it can be denied for the reasons "......if there appears 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."

12. In the light of above statutory provision bail prayer of the juvenile revisionist has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right. The Act has a solemn purpose to achieve betterment of juvenile offenders but it is not a shelter home for those juvenile offenders who have got criminal proclivities and a criminal psychology. It has a reformative approach but does not completely shun retributive theory. Legislature has preserved larger interest of society even in cases of bail to a juvenile. The Act seeks to achieve moral physical and psychological betterment of juvenile offender and therefore if, it is found that the ends of justice will be defeated or that goal desired by the legislature can be achieved by detaining a juvenile offender in a juvenile home, bail can be denied to him. This is perceptible from phraseology of section 12 itself. Legislature in its wisdom has therefore carved out exceptions to the rule of bail to a juvenile.

13. When analysed in the light of above discussion, case of the revisionist falls in more that one exceptions provided under section 12 of the Act and is segregated from that of revisionist. Sequence of events unerringly indicate criminal proclivities of the revisionist. His mother has no commanding control over him. Record does not indicate any other male relative to keep control of the revisionist for the betterment of his moral and psychological qualities. In such a view, if the revisionist is released on bail, not only it will be miscarriage of justice, but will push the revisionist into further criminality. The ambit and scope of the Act is reformative and not further degradation and therefore a juvenile offender has to be detained at such a place where he can be separated from other criminal and crimes. Revisionist's case falls in more than one clauses of exception as is provided under Section 12 of the Act.

Rule in the case of the revisionist cannot be applied because case of the revisionist stands at a different footing. Both the courts below have considered his case from the angle of psychological and moral characteristics. Factual aspect of the case has not been mentioned to show the gravity of the offences but the same has been recorded in order to indicate criminal approach of the appellant as to how in a daring manner he had committed the offence. It reflects his criminal mind and criminal associations he is attached with. This fact is also clear from the report of District Probation Officer, Kannauj, which is extracted hereunder:

"vipkjh fd'kksj vafdr ckcw ikap HkkbZ gSaA ikap HkkbZ;ksa esa lcls NksVk gSA 10 chÄk [ksrh gSA firk [ksrh dk dk;Z djrs gSaA vafdr ls pkj cM+s HkkbZ etnwjh dk dk;Z djrs gSaA

ifjokj ds lnL; ds laxfr ds dkj.k gh ?kVuk dks vatke fn;k x;kA vkipkjh fd'kksj dh ncax izo`fRr dh tkudkjh feyh gSA tekur ds i'pkr iqu++: mlh rjg ds ekgksy esa tkus dh vk'kadkA"

14.From the above discussions, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Bail prayer of the revisionist is declined by confirming impugned orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 25.06.2014 and lower appellate court dated 23.07.2014.

Order Date :- 20.4.2015

YK

(Om Prakash-VII, J.)