Sameer v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 52

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 233 of 2018

Revisionist :- Sameer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Achyuta Nand Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

This revision is directed against the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No.322 of 2017 (Sameer vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 08.11.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.310 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 353 I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District-Aligarh rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the applicant was implicated in three cases on the same day. The opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dixit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law aged about sixteen years and few months on the date of the incident. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.