Criminal Revision was allowed to set aside orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused. The court held gravity of offence is not a ground for denial under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act and granted bail subject to conditions.
Impugned orders set aside; revisionist released on personal bond and two sureties of his father/guardian with 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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 638 of 2019
Revisionist :- Sachin Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Prakash Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 03.01.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2018 as well as order dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur, arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2018, under Sections 376 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)5 A SC/ST Act, Police Station Nand Ganj, district Ghazipur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused is minor. He submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the accused, who was declared juvenile is about 12 years of age. He submitted that there is no injury on the person of the victim. He submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 17.07.2018 and the medical of the victim, who is about 6-7 years, was conducted on 19.07.2018 and the doctor has opined that no injury was found on the person of the victim and hymen of the victim was also found intact. It is also been submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and DPO reports is in his favour and the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has already been declared juvenile and his bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 24.08.2018 and appeal filed against the order of Juvenile Justice Board was also dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2019 in total disregard of law.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 hereinafter 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 applicant.
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 24.08.2018 & 03.01.2019 are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist conflict in law involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties by his father/guardian, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions:
(i) The applicant be given into custody of his father;
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The applicant 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;
(iv) The applicant 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 9.9.2020 R./
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of bail to the juvenile accused was in consonance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act
Whether gravity of offence is a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile
Whether sufficient grounds exist to deny bail to the declared juvenile
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶17
Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sachin Rajbhar
State of U.P.
Another
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
