Vikrant (Juvenile) Revisionist v. State Of U.P And Another Opposite Partys

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.

List has been revised. No counter affidavit has been filed by the counsel for the opposite party no. 2, for which time was granted on last date.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri. Ghanshyam Pandey, learned advocate holding brief of Sri. Gulab Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2014 as well as order dated 24.2.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarnagar in case crime no. 250 of 2013, under section 376 (g) IPC and Section 3/5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S Khatauli, District Muzaffarngar, whereby the revisionist was refused to be released on bail by Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of Juvenile Justice Board.

As per prosecution case, F.I.R was lodged by Sri. Chandraveer at 7.05 p.m on 1.5.2013 with the allegations that his minor daughter was enticed away and gang raped by the revisionist and two others named in the F.I.R In statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix stated that she was gang raped by the revisionist and two others named in F.I.R The revisionist was declared juvenile vide order dated 11.11.2013 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarnagar and the bail application moved by the revisionist, the juvenile in conflict with law was rejected and the order of rejection of bail application was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the juvenile has preferred this revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the gravity of offence has nothing to do with disposal of application of bail as well as grant of bail to juvenile and the bail application is required to be considered strictly in accordance with provisions of section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000; that the court below acted wrongly and illegally in rejecting the application on the ground that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the release of revisionist 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; that court below failed to consider the report of District Probation Officer, Muzaffarnagar, which states that there is no probability of his bringing in association with known criminals or exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger and ends of justice are not likely to be defeated by his release; that the impugned orders rejecting the bail application and dismissing the appeal are wrong, illegal and against the materials on record and are liable to be set aside; that the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA defended the impugned orders and submitted that this is an incident of gang rape with minor girl and apart from offence under section 376 (g) IPC, the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are also attracted; that considering the fact that the matter relates to gang rape there is every possibility to joining of the association of known criminals by the revisionist and further involvement and repetition of similar offences may not be ruled out, which would defeat the ends of justice.

Upon hearing counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that the bail of juvenile in conflict with law is required to be considered under the provisions of section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, irrespective of the gravity of offence. section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 provides that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, except that he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing (i) that the 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, and in absence of any of the three conditions, the juvenile is required to be released. It is not disputed that the revisionist has been declared a juvenile vide order dated 11.11.2013, which order is alleged to have been confirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 11.2.2014 Since the juvenility of revisionist is not disputed, his bail is required to be considered under the provisions of section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act and for the purpose of disposal of bail application, the report of District Probation Officer ought to have been taken into consideration. The copy of report of District Probation Officer, Muzaffarnagar, which has been filed as Annexure No. 6 with the affidavit in this revision shows, that District Probation Officer, Muzaffarnagar has reported that there is no probability of juvenile to be brought into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and there is no likelihood of defeat of ends of justice on his release. It has been mentioned that the revisionist belongs to an ordinary family and apart from parents he has three sisters and one brother and the father of revisionist works as labour.

In the impugned orders, there is no discussion about the report submitted by District Probation Officer and no reason has been mentioned for disbelieving or ignoring the report of District Probation Officer. The findings of the courts below for believing the existence of conditions mentioned under section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act for refusal of bail are not based upon any evidence on record and appears to be based on surmises and conjectures. There is nothing on record to show that there was any criminal history of the revisionist or co-accused, alleged to be involved in the incident of gang rape. Merely for the reason that the revisionist is allegedly involved in a case of gang rape, it may not be presumed that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release will defeat the ends of justice. The impugned order rejecting the bail to revisionist and dismissing the appeal are wrong and incorrect and are liable to be set aside.

The revision is allowed. Impugned orders refusing bail to revisionist and dismissing his appeal are hereby set aside. The revisionist shall be entitled to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties by the father/guardian of the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board to the satisfaction of Board and upon furnishing an undertaking by the parents of revisionist that they will take all care of the revisionist/juvenile to keep away from the unlawful activities and provide him necessary education as well as moral education.