Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2340 of 2021

Revisionist :- Jahid

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Geetam Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This revision has been preferred by the father of the revisionist for release

of the applicant, who is minor, against the judgment and order dated

13.7.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2021 (Jahid Vs. State of

U.P.) arising out of order dated 8.6.2021 passed in Criminal Case no. 10 of

2021 (State Vs. Jahid) in Case crime No. 390 of 2020, under section 377

IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Dholna,District Kasganj rejecting

the bail of revisionist.

Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for

the bail of a juvenile.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has been

falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned A.G.A. did not raise any dispute with regard to the aforesaid

facts.

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 expressed the similar view and has granted bail to

the juvenile offender in heinous offence. Seriousness of offence is no

ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.

Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position and the fact that in this

case no such conditions exists, on the basis of which the bail application of

a juvenile can be dismissed, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed

and is accordingly allowed. Order dated 13.7.2021 passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 07 of 2021 (Jahid Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of order dated

8.6.2021 passed in Criminal Case no. 10 of 2021 (State Vs. Jahid) in Case

crime No. 390 of 2020, under section 377 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO

Act, P.S. Dholna,District Kasganj are hereby set aside.

In these circumstances, revisionist is entitled for bail.

Let revisionist-Jahid be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case on

furnishing a personal bond by the Father/legal guardian Sri Mainuddin and

two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile

Justice Board to the effect that he will not come into con