This revision against cr假 bail rejection orders was allowed. The Court held that no material existed to believe society defeat ends of justice if juvenile on bail, setting aside impugned orders to grant bail.
Bail granted to Saloni Verma (Minor) on personal bond through guardian and two sureties.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2080 of 2018
Revisionist :- Saloni Verma (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gopal Krishna Pandey,Kailash Prakash Pathak,Kashi Nath Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aslam Ali,S.M. Nazir Abbas Abedi
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 30.5.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Mau in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2018 (Saloni Verma vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 9.5.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.560/2017, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri S.M. Nazir Abbas Abedi, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is wholly innocent and she is not named in the F.I.R. and has been made an accused solely on the basis of some hearsay evidence. Admittedly, the revisionist is young girl and was declared juvenile in conflict with law after determination her age to be 15 year 10 months and 10 days. The District Probation Officer in its report dated 25.4.2018 has stated that act, conduct and behaviour of the revisionist and her family members are absolutely normal and have cordial relation with their neighbours. No one in the family has past any antecedent. The Probation Officer, however, has submitted that the revisionist needs proper supervision and care and in its absence the possibility of revisionist indulging in criminal activity cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel has assailed the report of Probation Officer that though in the entire report he has not brought any adverse material against the revisionist however in the event revisionist is released on bail there is possibility of her going in company of known and unknown criminals and further that release is likely to bring her in association with several known and unknown criminals and expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger or her release would defeat the ends of justice yet his opinion that after her release the possibility of her indulging in criminals activity cannot be ruled out is totally preposterous and baseless.
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 revisionist is already in custody since 19.11.2017 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-juvenile and she should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of her 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.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but her bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released she is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or her release would defeat the ends of justice.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.
The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring her into association with any known criminal or expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or her release would expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 9.5.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau as well as 30.5.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Mau are set-aside.
The revisionist, Saloni Verma (Minor) daughter of Badrinath Seth, resident of village Walidpur, P.S. Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond through her legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 23.10.2019 Dhirendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board was justified in rejecting bail without substantial material supporting exceptions under Section 12 of the Act.
Whether the Additional District and Sessions Judge considered the provisions of bail to a juvenile in the proper perspective.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Saloni Verma (Minor)
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
