Juvenile A Thru. His Grandfather Ramsajeevan Mathapher Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1089 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile A Thru. His Grandfather Ramsajeevan Mathapher Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anamika Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2As per service report dated 25.10.2023 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, notice has been personally served upon the opposite party no.2.

¶3This Criminal Revision has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 4.9.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.63/2023 (Juvenile Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and judgment and order dated 4.7.2023 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case Crime No.146 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶4Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that revisionist has falsely been implicated in the present case as during the course of investigation, statement of injured witnesses are recorded, the role of assault was alleged against other co-accused persons, namely Nandlal Yadav and Vinod Yadav. He further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board failed to appreciate D.P.O. report and rejected the bail application of the applicant, thereafter, appellate authority also rejected the application of the applicant. He next submitted that revisionist is in jail since 30.5.2023, charge sheet has already been filed and he is ready to cooperate in the trial and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, therefore, impugned rejection order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside. He has further contended that during pendency of this revision the co-accused, namely, Nandlal Yadav and Vinod Yadav have already been released on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.11935 of 2023 & 12219 of 2023 respectively.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above contentions but conceded that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

¶6The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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'.

¶7This Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile, which are as follows:

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶8Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

¶9It has further been submitted that gravity of the offence could not be relevant for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile, as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (68) ACC 616] and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has also been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that the revisionist is exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶10In para 33 of the judgment rendered in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another [(2012) 5 SCC 201], Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law-breakers and not accused of matured mind who use the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him, otherwise would amount to subverting the course of justice". ……………...the Court observed that this would clearly be treated as an effort to weaken the justice dispensation system."

¶11Learned trial court as well as appellate court quoted the case law Virendra Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No. 345 of 2011 but did not discuss as to how the case law will apply in this case. In case of Virendra, the accused/juvenile is in conflict with law committed rape with murder and that was found heinous in nature. The fact of this case altogether are different with the case of Virendra (supra).

¶12Learned trial court as well as appellate court did not discuss the case law of Virendra (supra) in the light of the factual matrix of this case. In this case, revisionist has no criminal antecedents.

¶13In view of the above, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.9.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.63/2023 (Juvenile Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and judgment and order dated 4.7.2023 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case Crime No.146 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, are hereby set aside.

¶14Let revisionist, namely, Juvenile A Thru. His Grandfather Ramsajeevan Mathapher Yadav, be released on bail in Case Crime No.146 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh on furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf of revisionist by his legal guardian/grand father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/grand father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Board on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Board that absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶15Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Gaurav/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench