Gore Lal vs State of U.P.

Shri Kant Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record.

This is a revision against the judgement and order dated 19.06.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2010 (Gore Lal v State of U.P.) whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisionist''s appeal and refused to release him on bail.

It appears that the revisionist has already been declared as juvenile and there is no dispute to this extent.

The revisionist Gore Lal is involved in Case No. 142 of 2006 (State v Jainav & others) arising out of Crime No. 3 of 2004, under sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and 3(1)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Mahuli, District Kabir Nagar. He moved an application for bail but the Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application. The appeal filed by the revisionist was also dismissed by the learned Session Judge.

The Session Judge found that the victim of the crime was a minor girl of 15 years and the revisionist was no doubt a juvenile on the date of the occurrence but has become aged about 22 years when the appeal was heard, therefore, it was not considered proper to release the revisionist on bail. It was further observed that the offence of rape was not only a crime against the victim but also against the entire society.

According to the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of children) Act, 2000 (in short "the Act"), the relevant date for determining question of juvenility is the date of commission of the offence and not any other date. Therefore, the observation of the learned Session Judge that the accused had become aged about 22 years on the date the appeal was heard, has no relevancy. Admittedly, the revisionist was juvenile on the date of the occurrence, therefore, the revisionist is entitled to claim bail under the scheme of the Act.

A juvenile cannot be denied bail on the ground of gravity of the crime as alleged to have been committed. His bail has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act, which provides:

�Section 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 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 incharge 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.�

A perusal of Section 12 of the Act reveals that a juvenile is entitled to bail notwithstanding? the seriousness of the crime. His bail can be refused only when it is shown that there are reasonable grounds for believing that his 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. There is no allegation against the revisionist that in the event of his release on bail he will come into the association with any known criminal or he will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that section 12 of the Act is fully attracted in this case, therefore, it would be just and expedient to enlarge the revisionist Gore Lal on bail.

The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.06.2010 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti in the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed.

Let the revisionist Gore Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond to be executed by his guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti.