Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4663 of 2019

Revisionist :- Shivam (Minor)

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State and perused the

material available on record.

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No. 109

of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 506, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police

Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor has been rejected by Juvenile Justice

Board, Bijnor vide judgement and order dated 17.10.2019.

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

19.11.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Bijnor in Criminal Appeal

No. 76 of 2019. Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present

criminal revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has been

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

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

the purposes of harassment. The juvenile-revisionist is in custody since

22.06.2019. He has been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has

become final. It is further submitted that major co-accused Rinku Kashyap has

already been granted bail on 04.12.2019 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Criminal Appeal No.5431 of 2019 while the applicant is 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-revisionist and other co-accused persons are

alleged to have murdered the deceased Chandra Prakash.

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 circumstances of the case and rival contention

of learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of records available on file,

report o