Allahabad High Court
Navneet Tiwari (Minor) Thru.Father ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 24 July, 2019
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 79 of 2019 Revisionist :- Navneet Tiwari (Minor) Thru.Father Surendra Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
This revision has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2018 (Navneet Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 13.11.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 1101 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jagdishpur, District Amethi.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the Case Crime No. 1101 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jagdishpur, District Amethi. He further submitted that it is undisputed that the revisionist is a juvenile and the Juvenile Justice Board failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Drawing attention of the Court towards D.P.O. report (appended as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit), learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that though the D.P.O. has not observed anything about the association with the criminals, if the revisionist is released on bail, but the said report was not considered by the Juvenile Justice Board while rejecting his application by means of the impugned order. It is also submitted that the appellate court has also failed to consider the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and wrongly dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 04.01.2019. Next submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the co-accused, namely, Hari Ram Tiwari, Mukesh Tiwari, Umesh Tiwari, Brijesh Tiwari and Ramesh Tiwari have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Case (Bail) Nos. 4568 of 2018, 7914 of 2018, 8221 of 2018, 8417 of 2018 and 892 of 2019 respectively. Photocopies of the orders are appended as Annexure 11 collectively to the revision as well as as Annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the revisionist also relied on the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Km. Fatma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2017 (3) JIC 891 (All) and Durvasa Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2017 (1) JIC 791 (All) to submit that the bail of a juvenile cannot be refused in uncared manner and on conjectures and surmises.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, opposed the bail and submitted that Ramesh Tiwari has been granted bail by mentioning in his bail application that he was having no criminal history. He further submitted that the revisionist has criminal history. He also submitted that, in case, the revisionist is released on bail then there is every possibility for association with the criminals and also in repeating such crimes.
Learned A.G.A. also opposed the revision and submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board.
Considering the facts and circumstances as also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly the revisionist is a juvenile and in the D.P.O. report, nothing has come against him about his future conduct or that if he is released on bail, he would be associated with the criminals. It is well settled 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'.
This 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, 2000. 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??
Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.
It 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.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 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 above, revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2018 (Navneet Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 13.11.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 1101 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jagdishpur, District Amethi, are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist, Navneet Tiwari 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 applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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.
Order Date :- 24.7.2019 VKS