In a criminal revision, the Court examined the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused. Relying on Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Shiv Kumar, it held that offence gravity is not a ground for refusal. The revision was allowed, and the accused was released on bail.
Impugned orders set aside; accused released on bail with sureties and conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1035 of 2018
Revisionist :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by learned Juvenile Court/Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Pilibhit in Juvenile Appeal No. 45/2017 (Rohit Vs. State of U.P) filed against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit in Case Crime No. 533 of 2017, under Section 376D, 328 I.P.C., P.S. Bilsanda, District Pilibhit.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has already been declared juvenile.
The 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 the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear 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 wound defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused Chandra Sen who had been assigned similar role had already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4706 of 2018, copy of which has been annexed with the present application. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.08.2017.
This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(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.?
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of
bail in Section 12 of the Act.
It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration 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. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 15.3.2018 and 22.11.2017 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Rohit involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 6.7.2018 Prakhar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail to a juvenile can be rejected based on the gravity of the offence under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Whether the impugned orders denying bail to the revisionist Rohit were in consonance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶16
Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rohit
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
