The central legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail to a juvenile accused should consider the specific conditions and provisions outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, and should not be solely based on the seriousness of the offense.

ORDER :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. From perusal of report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit dated 16.05.2019, it appears that the respondent no. 2 has been served properly but today when the case called out in the revised list, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Court No. 1, Pilibhit, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 373 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, whereby the bail application of the juvenile Kunal Sharma has been rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, an first information report was lodged by one Mayaram Sharma on 02.01.2019 in respect of an incident which took place on unknown date and time. The version of the first information report is that the son of the informant went out from the house on 01.01.2019 at about 06:30 P.M., and on 02.01.2019 at 06:00 A.M., the police informed that the dead body of his son was found near the bridge of Bhasura Canal. The informant reached there and found the dead body of his son, who was shot dead and on the spot some articles like beer bottles, momos, finger chips, 4-5 fiver glasses and a country made pistol were scattered. The informant named four persons and some unknown friends of those four persons. One of the named accused is Raj. Subsequently, when the accused Raj and one more accused Shivam were arrested, they disclosed the entire facts and by their statements, the name of the present juvenile-appellant came into light. The role assigned to the juvenile is that he brought out the country made pistol which he was already having and provided it to the assailant co-accused Shivam who fired on the deceased and consequently, he fell down and died on the spot.

5. On the basis of confessional statements of two co-accused persons, the present juvenile-appellant has also become accused in this case and he was taken into custody. His bail application has been rejected by the aforesaid impugned order.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, this juvenile appeal has been filed on the basis that the name of the accused-appellant came in light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Raj. There is no eye witness and the whole case is based on the last seen evidence. Nobody has seen the juvenile in the company of the deceased nor any recovery has been made from him. There is no evidence against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated. He was not named in the first information report. The court below has rejected the bail application of the juvenile in a routine way without taking into consideration and applying the judicial mind to the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. The impugned order is arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside and the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail.

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned order submitting that he is juvenile. He is in juvenile home since 06.01.2019. The appellant has attached the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit determining the age of juvenile to be 16 years 3 months and 20 days, hence, his age has been determined below 18 years and above 16 years by Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit, vide its order dated 08.02.2019. It has lastly been submitted that the co-accused namely Raj @ Raj Kamal Dixit on the basis of whose confessional statement the juvenile was implicated in the crime has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2019, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20166 of 2019.

8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed and has contended that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the bail application of the accused-appellant and there is sufficient evidence against the present accused-appellant.

9. Provision has been made under Section 12 of t