Anshu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar vs State of U.P.and Another

Manoj Misra,J.

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

This revision application has been preferred under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Jhansi, in Crl. Appeal No. 6 of 2012, and the order dated 24.1.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board,District Jhansi, whereby the application of the revisionist for bail under sections 396,302,120B I.P.C and section 41/411 I.P.C, Case Crime No.101 of 2011,Police Station Punch, District Jhansi, has been rejected.

The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that admittedly the revisionist was juvenile on the date of the incident. It has been contended that under section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the bail application of juvenile can be rejected only on the following grounds:

(a) that there are 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 (b) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

It has been contended that in the instant case, the District Probation Officer in his report had not indicated any material on the basis of which the aforesaid grounds could be inferred to reject the bail application. It has further been submitted that the other coaccused persons namely Kalloo Pal, Subhash Chandra Rathore, and Pramod Rajpoot have been granted bail by this Court in Bail Applications No. 25071/2011, 31134/11,31921/11 vide its orders dated 20.9.2011, 17.11.2011 and 25.11.2011 respectively.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that as there was no adverse report by the Jail Superintendent, District Prison, Jhansi as also by the District Probation Officer, Auraiya, on which a bail application of a juvenile could be rejected, therefore, the rejection of the bail application of the revisionist was not justified in law. Moreover, as the other coaccused persons have been enlarged on bail, I am of the view thalt the revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed. The order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Jhansi, in Crl. Appeal No.6 of 2012 as also the order dated 24.1.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, District Jhansi, in Case Crime No. 101 of 2011 is hereby set aside.

Let revisionistAnshu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar be enlarged on bail, in Case Crime No. 101 of 2011, under Sections 396,302, 120B and 41/411 I.P.C, Police Station Punch, DistrictJhansi on furnishing a personal bond by the father of the revisionistAnshu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar 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 contact with other offenders.