Point of law: rule of parity, which normally applies in cases of bail under Sections 437 or 439 Cr.P.C. may not be attracted to the case of a child in conflict with law, where another child in conflict in the same crime is granted the concession of bail, under the Act. This is for the reason that in the case of bail to a juvenile, in matters where the entitlement to bail is not on merits but by virtue of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act, the right is always personal to the accused. It is not that for an identical role, two children in conflict with law, would both pass muster under the proviso to the Section 12(1) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of Mr. Gajendra Kumar, First Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria dated 17.01.2019 dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2018 and affirming an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria dated 06.12.2018, declining bail to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 37 of 2018 under Sections 147, 149, 302, 323, 353, 307/34 I.P.C. P.S. Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria.

2. This revision was admitted to hearing on 28.03.2019 and notice to the complainant-opposite party was directed to issue vide order dated 28.03.2019. According to office report dated 18.07.2019, service has been effected personally, evidenced by the report placed at flag ‘X’. The report marked by flag ‘X’ is a report dated 03.05.2019, submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria which indicates that the second opposite party, Jitendra Yadav has been personally served. A copy of the notice issued bearing acknowledgment of service is also enclosed. Service upon the second opposite party is, therefore, held sufficient. No one appears on behalf of the second opposite party.

3. The prosecution originates in the FIR dated 20.04.2018, giving rise to Case Crime No. 37 of 2018, last mentioned. This FIR was lodged by the second opposite party at half past nine on 20.04.2018 reporting an incident of the said date, that occurred at 3:00 o’clock in the evening hours. The first informant/opposite party no. 2, Jitendra Yadav, who is the brother of the two deceased, described the occurrence in the FIR thus: The informant, Jitendra Yadav was a native of village Jiraso, P.S. Bhatpar Rani, district Deoria. On 20.04.2018 in the day hours, his younger brothers Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Rajkumar Yadav, sons of Jiut Yadav, Dileep Yadav S/o Jiut Yadav, Durgesh S/o Shree Kant Yadav, all residents of village Jiraso were all ready to depart for a nearby place called Vahoran ka Tola, where at a certain Shambhu’s place they were invited to a feast in connection with a Tilak. They had proceeded to destination and on way reached a place Bandhe, at about 3:00 p.m. There, the accused Sunil Yadav S/o Nanhoo @ Vreejanand, Vimlesh Yadav S/o Dhurendra Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav S/o Surendra Yadav, Rajesh Yadav S/o Jamuna Yadav, Nand Ji Yadav S/o Jamuna Yadav, Chandrabhan Yadav S/o Mahaveer Yadav, Vikash Yadav S/o Nanhoo @ Vreejanand Yadav, Vijay Yadav S/o Rampravesh Yadav, Abhishek Yadav S/o Amresh Yadav, Jayprakash Yadav S/o Jamuna Yadav, Parbhas Yadav S/o Indrashan Yadav, all natives of village Jiraso, armed with iron rods and pipes, with a common intention to do the informant’s brothers to death, surrounded the victim’s on all sides and assaulted them. It is alleged that the informant’s brother, Rakesh attempted to escape in order to save his life but was surrounded on all sides. He was cornered in front of one Subhash Yadav’s house and battered to death by the accused, employing the iron rods and pipes. The informant’s other brother Rajkumar was surrounded by the assailant’s at the door of one Mundeerika Gaud and was battered to death on the spot, assaulted by the rods and pipes. The two others Dileep and Durgesh were battered by the assailants, injuring them grievously. Dileep collapsed on the spot and fainted. It is also reported that the other victim, Durgesh had disappeared.

4. The revisionist applied to the Juvenile Justice Board that he be declared a juvenile. The Board, by their order dated 15.11.2018, declared the revisionist a juvenile aged 17 years 9 months and 19 days on the date of occurrence. The revisionist then moved the Juvenile Justice Board for bail but his bail plea was rejected. An appeal was carried to the Sessions Judge, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) which has been dismissed by means of the order impugned, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria.

5. Aggrieved, this revision has been preferred.

6. Heard Mr. M.R. Khan, learned counsel