Manoj vs State of U.P.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.

Service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. No counter affidavit has been filed.

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2014 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.), Act Hardoi by which the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is ''Dewar'' of the deceased and he was not involved in the said demand of dowry or torture. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has not considered the provisions of the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act properly.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

The provision of bail to a juvenile are contained in section 12(1) of the Act, which reads as under:-

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, not with standing 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 in there appear reasonable ground 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.

In the light of statutory provision, bail prayer of the juvenile revisionist has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely be declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right. Bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds existed. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the above provisions of the Act. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there would have been absolutely no necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid Act. The language of Section 12 of the Act itself lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile accused shall be released. The first part of the provisions appears to be mandatory in nature for release of Juvenile on bail but the second part also equally appears to be mandatory for refusing the bail. It is for the prosecution to bring on record to be mandatory for refusing the bail. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and to make out any of the grounds provided in this Section which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail.

The Act is beneficial and social-oriented legislation which needs to be given full effect.

In section 12(1) itself the word "Reasonable ground for believing" have been used specifically by the legislature. Accordingly there should be some material on record to prove the aforesaid reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. In the present case I do not find any such ground existing. Mere suspicion is not sufficient to implicate the accused applicant and further more to reject bail on this suspicion. Accordingly the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the revision to be allowed.

In the present case, there is no such reasonable ground to believe that the release is likely to bring him into the association of hardened criminals.

The revision is hereby allowed and the order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA), Act, is hereby set-aside. The revisionist Manoj involved in Crime No. 391 of 2012, U/s. 498A/304B I.P.C., and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kasimpur, District Hardoi be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 40,000/- by his father/guardian alongwith two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the board concerned. The father/guardian shall also furnish an undertaking that he will keep the revisionist-applicant under his effective control and shall make every endeavour to ensure that the revisionist-applicant should not commit any illegal or immoral act and the revisionist-applicant should not join the association with any known criminal.