Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3635 of 2019

Revisionist :- Sadakat

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambuj Pandey,Avanish

Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for

Opposite Party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in

Case Crime No. 818 of 2018, under Sections 147, 302 and 148

I.P.C., Police Station Jhijhana, District Shamli has been rejected

by Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli, vide judgement and order

dated 24.05.2019.

3. Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement

and order dated 30.8.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Shamli in

Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2019. Both the orders of Courts

below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

4. 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 mala fide intention for

the purposes of harassment. He has been declared juvenile by

Board and order of Board has become final. Co-accused, who

are major, have been granted bail by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the

prayer for bail and supported the judgements of Courts below.

6. As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionist is alleged to

have active participation in the commission of murder of one

Rajendra with five co-accused on 26.11.2018 at about 4:00 pm.

7. 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 is as follows :-

"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."

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 of Probation Officer,

there is no ground so as to justify the rejection of bail of

juvenile under Section 12 of the said Act, therefore, the revision

deserves to be allowed and is a