Vijay Lakshmi,J.:-
By means of this revision, the revisionist has questioned the legality of the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2014, Vishal @ Satya Prakash @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (Hereinafter referred to as Juvenile Justice Act), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order dated 7.2.2014 of Juvenile Justice Board passed in Case Crime No. 129 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 325 of I.P.C., Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the bail application moved by the revisionist.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the orders passed by both the courts below are illegal and arbitrary. Both the courts below have not exercised their jurisdiction properly. No plausible reason has been assigned by the courts below while refusing to release the revisionist on bail. Both the learned courts below have not considered the provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act in letter and spirit. It has further been argued that there was nothing in the report submitted by District Probation Officer to indicate that after being released on bail there is likelihood of the revisionist coming into association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Despite that the learned courts below have refused to release the revisionist on bail without any supporting material on the record. It is settled law that gravity of offence will not be considered while deciding his bail application but both the courts below committed error of law while rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. The revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. No specific role has been assigned to the revisionist. There is delay in F.I.R. The incident is alleged to have taken place in midnight but no source of light has been shown in the F.I.R. The revisionist is a juvenile, so he is entitled to be benefited by the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revision be allowed. Impugned order be quashed and the revisionist be released on bail.
3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision by contending that the courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction by refusing the bail to juvenile and there is no need to interfere in the order impugned.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. The record shows that the revisionist was declared juvenile on 28.1.2014 by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board. The Juvenile Magistrate has observed that the revisionist was 15 years 2 months and 22 days old on the date of occurrence. There is no dispute regarding the age of the revisionist. No appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order declaring the revisionist to be a juvenile on the date of offence and the aforesaid order declaring the revisionist a juvenile has attained finality. In the aforesaid circumstance, both the courts below should have decided the bail application and the appeal in view of the provisions as provided under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, which is 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, 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"
6. 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.
Both the Impugned orders show that the courts below have opined that if released on bail, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the juvenile would come into association with his family members, who are the co-accused in the same occurrence. The reason given by the Courts below for refusing bail to juvenile does not appear just and proper.
7. The report of District Probation Officer is available on record, in which there is no mention of any abnormal behaviour and his physical/mental condition and social and economic status is shown as normal. The District Probation Officer has also mentioned that the revisionist has no criminal background but the learned Juvenile Magistrate without considering the report of District Probation Officer and without assigning any cogent reason, has refused to grant bail to the revisionist. Learned Appellate Court instead of applying its independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case has also wrongly concurred with the opinion of the Juvenile Justice Board.
8. 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.
9. In Rais Vs. State of U.P., 1991 ACR. 559 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."
10. In Sanjay Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P., 2006, Crl. Law Journal, pg. 2957 : 2007 (1) ACR 319, 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."
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 mother 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.139 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 325 of I.P.C., Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur, subject to condition that the 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.
___________
Comments