Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4856 of 2019

Revisionist :- Deepak Vishwakarma And Anr.

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.

Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar,Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of revisionist is taken on record.

Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Surbhan

Singh, learned Counsel for revisionists, learned AGA for State and perused the

material available on record.

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionists involved in Case Crime No. 138

of 2018, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Tabharpur, District Azamgarh

has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh vide judgement and

order dated 25.05.2019.

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated

25.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh in

Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2019. Both the orders of Courts below are impugned

in the present criminal revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionists have been

falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the revisionists is made

out and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for

the purposes of harassment. The juvenile-revisionists are in custody since

25.05.2019. They have been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has

become final. It is further submitted that complainant of case is not an eye

witness and major co-accused Prem Vishwakarma has already been granted bail

on 29.03.2019 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Case

No.12797 of 2019 while the applicants are minor and in custody.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for bail and

supported the judgements of Courts below.

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionists and other co-accused persons are

alleged to have murdered the deceased Devtadeen Vishvakarma.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000

provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.

"12 Bail of Juvenile.--(1) When any person accused of a bailable or

non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or

detained or appears or is brought before a board, such person shall,

notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in

force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the

supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit

institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appears

reasonable grounds for believing that the 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.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail

under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station,

such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in

the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section(1) by

the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order

sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such

period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be

specified in the order."

In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be

rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Apart from it, in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209

(Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld), this

Court has observed that seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a

juvenile.

Considering the entire facts and circum