Atul Kumar @ Kuldeep vs State of U.P. and Another

S.N.H. Zaidi, J.—This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2007 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2007 (Atul Kumar @ Kuldeep Kumar v. State) filed u/s 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the Juvenile Justice Act, and the order dated 4.10.07 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly whereby the bail application of the revisionist was rejected in case Crime No. 334 of 2004 u/s 376/506 I.P.C. of Police Station Sindhauli of district Shahjahanpur.

The facts which gave rise to the revision, in brief, are that opposite party No. 2 Veer Pal Singh lodged a report at Police Station Sindhauli, Shahjahanpur with the allegations that his 5 years old daughter Km. Manjani was raped by Atul Kumar in his shop where the girl had gone to buy a bread on 4.10.2004 at 4.00 P.M. On the basis of the report a case u/s 376/506 I.P.C. was registered at the Police Station. Accused revisionist Atul Kumar alias Kuldeep Kumar was declared a juvenile by the High Court by order dated 1.9.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1658 of 2005. After that an application for bail was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly which was rejected by the Board by order dated 4.10.2007. Against that order an appeal was preferred u/s 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which too was dismissed and the bail rejection order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed. The above orders of bail rejection have been challenged in this revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist, and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials on record.

It has been pointed out that the Juvenile Justice Board had refused the bail to the revisionist on the ground that his release on bail, may expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and he may again involve in crime whereas he may be reformed by keeping him in the better and clean atmosphere of the Government Protection Home, but the Board had not mentioned any ground on the basis of which it had come to the above conclusion. It has also been pointed that the lower appellate court has refused the bail to the revisionist on the ground that the release of bail would defeat the ends of justice without appreciating the law on the point and also without giving any reason as to how the justice would be defeated in releasing the revisionist on bail.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited the observations of this Court in Mohd. Feroz v. State of U.P. reported in 2007 (57) ACC 74 in support of this contention.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides for releasing a juvenile on bail and also that the bail of a juvenile can be refused when any of the following three grounds is present:

If the release is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals,

If the release is likely to expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger;

If his release would defeat the ends of justice.

It appears that the lower appellate court had considered the provisions of said Section and refused the bail of the revisionist on the ground that by releasing the juvenile on bail the ends of justice would be defeated. Justice requires that an innocent should not be punished and likewise the guilty should not go unpunished. Therefore, the purpose of justice would serve by punishing the guilty and also by ensuring that the innocent is not punished. The allegation against the accused revisionist is that he had sexually ravished a little girl of about 5 years. This Court finds itself in conformity with the observation of the lower appellate court that the ends of justice would be defeated in allowing the bail to the juvenile, as the conscience of the society is badly shattered whenever an incident of such a nature is occurred. The lower appellate Court does not appear to have committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the revisionist does not appear to have any bearing in the facts and circumstances of this case as in this case the lower appellate court has taken into account the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act in disposing of the appeal.

As the order of the Juvenile Justice Board has been merged in the appellate court''s order, therefore, there is no need to consider the merit of the order of the Board. This revision has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed.