Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P.

K.N. Sinha, J.—The present revision has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Baghpat, refusing Bail Application No. 1114 of 2002 moved by revisionist under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that on 19.6.2002 revisionist Deepak Kumar committed rape on Km. Ujma Praveen. The revisionist was arrested and he moved for bail which was rejected. The revisionist approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 2888 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 15.11.2002, directing the Sessions Judge to decide the bail application on merit by exercising his power vested on him by Section 6(2) of the Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. After the remand of the case and the above direction by this Court, the Sessions Judge transferred the bail application to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, who rejected the bail application, hence this revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. perused the impugned order. This Court has directed to decide the matter keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:

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) ....

(3) ....

According to Sub-section (1) of Section 12, any person, being juvenile, shall be released on bail with or without surety. However, for refusal of the bail there are only three grounds-firstly if the release is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal. Secondly, exposes him to moral, physical or psychological danger and thirdly if his release would defeat the ends of justice.

This Court has been repeatedly directing that if the release is refused on these grounds, the Court should record finding as to whether any such ground exists or not. It is not that the mere quoting of few lines from this Act, the bail should be refused. The impugned order does not show any such ground except that it is against law. Being against law is no ground u/s 12 of the Act whereas this Court by its order dated 15.11.2002 directed the Sessions Judge to decide the bail application keeping in view the provision of Section 12 of the Act. The impugned order has been passed in utter disregard of Section 12 of the Act but it nowhere shows that the release would defeat the ends of justice and moreover there is also nothing to show as to how the release would defeat the ends of justice. No doubt the girl is minor but at the same time, the boy is also minor and is detained in Children Home for the last 7-8 months. It appears that the Sessions Court was bent upon refusing the bail application and that is why ignored the direction of this Court, which is not proper for the Additional Sessions Judge concerned.

The revision is, therefore, allowed. The revisionist shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties and personal bond to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.