Allahabad High Court
Amit Yadav Alias Monu Alias Bebo vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 January, 2016
Author: Vijay Lakshmi
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 39 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1398 of 2015 Revisionist :- Amit Yadav Alias Monu Alias Bebo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vishnu Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned learned AGA for the State. Perused the record.
An application was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad, by the mother of the revisionist Amit Yadav alias Monu alias Bebo, who is a juvenile offender, seeking his custody, in Case Crime No. 70 of 2013, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 12.8.2014 on the ground that if the juvenile is given in the custody of his mother, it would bring him into the association of known criminals and would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.8.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2014, Amit Yadav @ Monu @ Bebo Vs. State of U.P., before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Moradabad, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2015.
The revisionist, by means of the instant revision has challenged the legality and correctness of both these orders dated 12.3.2015 and 12.8.2014, mainly on the ground that even though the revisionist is undisputedly a juvenile but both the courts below, without keeping in view the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, have passed the impugned orders.
While drawing the attention of this court to the gang chart appended to the revision as Annexure no. 2, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that only two cases against the revisionist are shown in the gang chart, which are as under:
1. Case Crime No. 367 of 2012, under sections 395, 997, 412 I.P.C., P.S. Baniyather, District Sambhal.
2. Case crime no. 25 of 2013 under section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Baniyather, District Sambhal.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that in both these cases the revisionist has been granted bail. However, as he was implicated under the Gangster Act, on the basis of aforesaid two cases he could not be released from the Juvenile home. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the prayer of mother of the revisionist for his custody was refused by the Juvenile Justice Board only on the ground that his release is likely to bring him into the association with known criminals or to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, without any evidence for the same. There was no evidence on record to substantiate the above fact that there is possibility of revisionist coming in association with any known criminal. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the co-accused persons, who are major, have already been released on bail, whereas the applicant is still languishing in juvenile home due to his implication under Gangsters Act. He has further submitted that in the first case shown in the gang chart as Crime No. 367/2013 (wrongly typed as 367/2012) he has been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. The second case crime no. 25 of 2013 under section 307 I.P.C. is related to an alleged incidence of firing on police party where no one has received injury. On the aforesaid grounds it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the revisionist that both the orders being illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, be set aside and the juvenile/revisionist be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A has supported both the impugned orders and has submitted that the parents have got no control over the revisionist offender therefore for the betterment of his future life, his retention in Juvenile Home has been rightly ordered by both the courts below. Consequently instant revision being merit less be dismissed. However, learned AGA has fairly conceded that all the remaining accused have already been bailed out by the competent court.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides, I am of the considered view that this instant revision deserves to be allowed for the reasons mentioned below:-
The Apex Court in a catena of judgements has constantly held that gravity of the offence is not a ground to deny bail to a juvenile accused. Unless the conduct of the accused is such to indicate that in all likelihood, after being released on bail, the juvenile-accused will indulge into more crimes. If there are no imminent chances of his repeating the crime, bail to a juvenile should not be ordinarily refused.
In A Juvenile Vs. State of Orissa:2009 Cr.L.J. 2002, it has been observed as under:-
"A Juvenile needs parental protection and guidance to bring him back to the mainstream of the society from which he has strayed. Thus his release on bail would aid the ends of justice rather than defeat it."
In Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2006 Cr.L.J. 1373, it has been observed thus:-
"9. At the time of consideration of bail under Section 12 of the Act, the merit or nature of offence has no relevancy. The language of Section 12 of the Act, using the word "shall" is mandatory in nature and providing non obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time-being in force be released on bail" shows the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the delinquent juvenile offender by releasing him on bail who is arrested or produced before a Court; however, with exception to release him on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and to make out any of the grounds provided in this Section which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail.
10. The Act is beneficial and social-oriented legislation which needs to be given full effect by all concerned whenever the case of juvenile comes before them. In absence of any material or evidence of reasonable ground to believe that the delinquent juvenile, if release on bail, is likely to come into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice. On the contrary, keeping in view the legislative intent in enacting the Act, the juvenile offender deserves to be released on bail."
In Sanjay Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P.: 2006 Cr.L.J. 2957 it has been observed as follows:-
"10. In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable grounds for believing above mentioned exceptions must be brought before the court concerned by the prosecution but in the present case, no such ground for believing any of the above mentioned exceptions has been brought by the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal only on the presumption that due to commission of this offence, the father and other relatives of other kidnapped boy had developed enmity with the revisionist, that is why in case of his release, the physical and mental life of the revisionist will be in danger and his release will defeat the ends of justice but substantial to this presumption no material has been brought before the appellate court and the same has not been discussed and only on the basis of the presumption, Juvenile Justice Board has refused the bail of the revisionist which in the present case is unjustified and against the spirit of the Act. It appears that the impugned order dated 27-6-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut and order dated 28-5-2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are illegal and are hereby set aside".
Above pronouncements are fully applicable to the facts of this revision. The impugned orders have been passed by both the Courts below merely on the basis of presumption and guess work without any substance.
In view of the above discussions, the revision deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board as well as lower appellate court are set aside and the courts below are directed to release the revisionist on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in the aforesaid case crime with the condition that the parents of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and they will not allow him to indulge in any criminal activity and will keep a check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relative of the revisionist juvenile.
The revision is allowed with the aforesaid directions.
Order Date :- 22.1.2016 Pcl