Aman vs State of U.P.

B.A. Zaidi, J.—This is a revision against the order dated 9.5.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2006, Aman v. State, decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hardoi rejecting the appeal of a juvenile in conflict with law.

Shri Shailendra Srivastava, counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State have been heard.

The juvenile was charged under Sections 302, 394 and 412, I.P.C. for having killed and robbed the father of the complainant. A country-made pistol and a cartridge and Rs. 10,000 were also recovered from him.

His bail application was heard by the Juvenile Justice Board which rejected the application primarily on the basis of the report of the Probation Officer.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 lays the following guidelines for grant of bail of juvenile:

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 but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application of the revisionist primarily on the ground that the Probation Officer had reported that if released on bail, the juvenile is likely to fall in bad company of known criminals and will be exposed to moral degradation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also relied on the Probation Officer''s report in rejecting the appeal of the revisionist.

We see no sufficient reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Judge, particularly, in view of the fact that the juvenile has been hauled up under the Gangsters Act also, which provided imminent possibility of the juvenile falling in undesirable company of known criminals.

The counsel for the revisionist argued that all the co-accused have been released on bail. That does not, ipso facto, imply that the juvenile should also be released on bail. The ground on which the bail applications of juveniles are to be considered are given in Section 12 above and it is on the basis of these conditions that the question of grant or refusal of bail is to be determined.

Revision dismissed.