Allahabad High Court
Mukesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 April, 2015
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1340 of 2015
Revisionist :- Mukesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Omvir Babu
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.4.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2015 whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, in Case Crime No. 524 of 2014, u/s 376D, 342 I.P.C. and 3/ 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, was dismissed
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a student, who was aged 15 years 8 months and six days at the time of the alleged incident. He has not committed any offence. He has no criminal history. However, the bail applications filed earlier by him before the courts below were rejected without any application of judicial mind in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It is next contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the statement given by the prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. It is further submitted that the co-accused Lokesh, who was major, has already been released on bail whereas the applicant is still languishing in District Jail, Aligarh, since 18.8.2014 in clear violation of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that the revisionist is involved in a henious offence of gang rape and so he is not entitled to bail.
The record shows that vide order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, the revisionist has been declared juvinile and no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order. Under these circumstances, the bail application of the revisionist should have been dealt with by the courts below in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which is reproduced below:-
"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, 1972 (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."
Thus, Section 12 of the Act lays down only three contingencies in which the bail can be refused to juvenile. These are:
(i) If his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or;
(ii)Expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or;
(iii)That his release would defeat the ends of justice.
The Courts below have rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground of gravity of the offence and apprehending that if he is released on bail there are chances of his being coming into association with the known criminals.
In Prakash Vs. State of Rajsthan, 2006, Cri Law Journal, pg. 1373, it has been observed that " at the time of consideration of bail under Section 12 of the Act, the merit or nature of offence has no relevancy. The language of the Section 12 of the Act using the word "shall" is mandatory in nature and providing non obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force", he be released on bail.........................................", shows the intention of legislature to grant bail to the delinquent juvenile offender with certain exceptions. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such materials while opposing the bail and to make out any of the grounds/exceptions provided in the Section which may pursuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail.
In Rais Vs. State of U.P., A.C.C. in Criminal Revision No. 860 of 1991 this Court has held as under:
"The word 'known' has not been used by the parliament in the section without purpose. By use of word 'known' the Parliament requires that the court must know the full particulars of the criminal with which the delinquent is likely to come into association."
In Sanjay Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P., 2006, Crl. Law Journal, pg. 2957, it has been observed as follows:
"In case of refusal of the bail some reasonable grounds for believing above mentioned exceptions must be brought before the Court concerned by the prosecution."
The Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial and social-oriented legislation, which needs to be given full effect by all concerned whenever the case of a juvenile comes before them. In absence of any material or evidence all reasonable ground to believe that the delinquent juvenile, if released on bail is likely to come into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Keeping in view the aforesaid legislative intent in enacting the Act and considering the welfare of the revisionist with a hope that he may recover himself after being released on bail, by associating himself to the main stream of life, it appears expedient in the interest of justice that his prayer for bail be allowed.
In view of the above discussion, the revision is allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board as well as Lower Appellate Court are quashed and the Juvenile Justice Board is directed to release the revisionist on bail on his father/mother's furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board in Crime No. 524 of 2014, u/s 376D, 342 I.P.C. and 3/ 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, subject to condition that the father/mother of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 21.4.2015
Pcl
