Point of Law: Offence of Murder - Bail of juvenile - Not granted - Revisionist disentitled to bail under all three exceptions to rule, envisaged under proviso to Section 12(1) of Act of 2015.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Revision is directed against a judgment and order of Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Dehat dated 24.11.2020, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2020 and affirming orders dated 15.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat refusing bail to the revisionist pending trial, in the case arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 332, 333, 412, 353, 504, 506, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short “IPC”] and Section 7 of The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Police Station - Chaubeypur, District - Kanpur Nagar.

2. It appears that the nuptials were hardly over for the revisionist, Khushi and her husband Amar Dubey, on July the 3rd, 2020, when the infamous incident at Village Bikru, Kanpur Nagar took place. It all happened at the house of one Vikas Dubey, whom the Police, in strong numbers, had gone to arrest. It is the prosecution case that Vikas Dubey, who was a dreaded gangster, somehow, laid in wait, along with his henchmen, for the Police to arrive. Vikas’s associates, that included his relatives, had positioned themselves at strategic points, atop the roof of his house and those abutting it. They opened indiscriminate fire on the incoming police force, which led to eight police personnel being shot dead and another six sustaining grievous gunshot injuries. A private driver of the then Station House Officer of the local police station also sustained injuries. It is the prosecution case, much of which figures in the eyewitness account of the surviving police personnel, recorded in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short “Code”] that while the menfolk pumped bullets into the police personnel, the wives of all the accused were aiding and instigating their husbands. The revisionist is also credited with the role of instigating the menfolk to do the policemen to death. She is stated to have been atop a house adjoining Vikas Dubey’s, during entire course of the brutal assault.

3. The revisionist applied to be declared a juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat, [for short “the Board”]. She was found to be 16 years, 10 months and 12 days old on the date of occurrence. She was, thus, well below 18 years of age. She was declared a juvenile by the Board, vide order dated 01.09.2020. The revisionist then made an application for bail to the Board, which came up for determination on 15.09.2020. It was rejected by the Board. She then preferred a second application for bail to the Board, that came to be rejected again by an order dated 13.10.2020.

4. Aggrieved by the orders dated 15.09.2020 and 13.10.2020, declining bail, the revisionist carried an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, [for short “the Act of 2005”]. The appeal came up for determination before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/ Special Judge (POCSO Act) Kanpur Dehat, on 24.11.2020. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Board.

5. Disillusioned by concurrent refusal of bail pending trial by the two courts below, this revision has been instituted.

6. Heard Mr. Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision and Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rajesh Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State.

7. The submission of Mr. Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist, made very persuasively, is that the revisionist has been implicated in this crime, because she had the misfortune of marrying Amar Dubey, a few days before the occurrence. It is urged by Mr. Mishra that the revisionist is a minor and a young girl, a month and so