Ashish Kumar Minor vs State Of U.P. And Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 4 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2539 of 2014
 

 
Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar Minor
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ghan Shyam Das
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Bratendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard Sri Ghan Shyam Das learned counsel for the revisionist (minor) as well as Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000') and Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.08.2014 passed by learned Additiional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and upheld the judgement and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri in Bail Application No. Nil of 2014 filed in the Inquiry No. 45 of 2014 (State Vs. Ashish) arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2012 under Section 302 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri.

3. The allegation of offence against the revisionist is under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2000 before Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri was rejected vide order dated 04.04.2014. Being aggrieved by the said order, an Appeal No. 20 of 2014 ( Ashish Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 52 of the Act of 2000 was filed by the revisionist before the Appellate Court and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 21.08.2014. Dissatisfied by the orders dated 04.04.2041 and 21.08.2014 passed by the Courts below, the revisionist has preferred present revision under Section 53 of the Act of 2000 read with Section 397/ 401 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

4. 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 petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2012 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.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 but none is present on his behalf.

6. 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 has produced a report dated 26.03.2014 of District Probation Officer, Mainpuri, in which the character and conduct of the petitioner has been found very good and as per the report, if the petitioner-juvenile is released on bail, then his release is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would not defeat ends of justice. Relevant portion of the report reads as under:

" ikl iMksl ds yksxksa us crk;k fd ckyd d{kk 10 dk fo|kFkhZ Fkk ckyd dk LoHkko e`nqy gS ckyd ukckfyx gS mldh iwoZ vipkfjrk dk dksbZ bfrgkl ugha gS mlds fdlh fxjksg esa lfEefyr gksus dh lEHkkouk ugha gS ;fn ekrk firk dk lgh fu;U=.k jgs rks lq/kkj dh lEHkkouk gSA"

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2000 and the Report of the District Probation Officer. It appears that for the protection of juvenile, this special Act has been enacted. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 indicates that if a juvenile is arrested or detained or is brought before a Board, such juvenile shall 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.

8. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where 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 ends of justice.

9. In this context, I have also scanned through and perused the orders passed by the courts below, FIR of the case as well as the report submitted by the Probation Officer.

10. Having carefully examined provisions of the Act of 2000 vis-a-vis the orders passed by the courts below, I do not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, as indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2000, is made out. The Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the provisions envisaged under Section 12 of the Act of 2000. In my humble opinion, the Act of 2000 being a beneficiary and social reforms oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned, whenever matters relating to juvenile come for consideration before them.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed at the admission stage and the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri as well as order dated 21.08.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, declining bail to the revisionist are hereby set aside.

12. It is directed that the juvenile accused-revisionist Ashish Kumar(minor) S/o. Shri Ram Manohar shall be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) by his (mother) natural guardian along with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, he shall appear before the said court or any other court, during pendency of the investigation/trial in the case and that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and secure him away from the company of known criminals.

Order Date :- 17.4.2015

YK