Sanju @ Dheerendra Kumar vs State of U.P.

Vedpal, J.—This revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred teas Act) has been preferred by the revisionist Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar against the judgment and order dated 3.7.2008, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Lucknow in Crl. Appeal No. 163 of 2008 Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar v. State of U.P. under section 52 of the Act by which the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 16.5.2008 rejecting the bail application of the revisionist herein in case crime No. 130 of 2008 under sections 342, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow was confirmed.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. Both the partiesagree that this matter be disposed of at this stage finally.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of this judgment are that Santosh Kumar, brother of the victim on 15.4.2008 had lodged a report against Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar (revisionist herein), alleging that on 8.4.2008 at 8 p.m. Sanju alias Dhirendra Kumar had committed rape on her sister when she had gone to answer call of the nature. On the basis of the first information report the accused (revisionist herein) was arrested by the Police and taken before the Juvenile Justice Board where on the basis of the High School Certificate he was declared juvenile. The bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 3.7.2008 on the ground that the offence has been committed by the revisionist because his parents have no control over him and in case he is released on bail, it is likely that he will associate with criminals and to release him on bail will defeat the ends of justice.

Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of learned Additional Sessions Judge this revision has been filed.

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and his bail application by the Board as well as Sessions Judge has been rejected without any sufficient ground and there was no material against the revisionist to show that if he is released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with any criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. That gravity of the offence is no ground for refusal of bail. It was further contended that provision of section 12 of the Act was not analysed properly because there was nothing in the report of Probation Officer that revisionist has any criminal history or previously he had been associated with any criminal. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contentions relied on Shaildrea Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Dand Nirnaya Sangrah 264.

Learned A.G.A. through his submissions supported the impugned order.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties. Before averting merit and demerit of the case it is necessary to go through the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows;

Bail of juvenile. (1) When any person accused of a bailable or nonbailable 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 [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution off fit person] 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 subsection (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 subsection (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".

It reveals from the perusal of the provisions of section 12 of the Act that a juvenile is to be released on bail and he can be refused bail only if the grounds enumerated therein exist. Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and has been declared by the Board and this fact was not controverted by the prosecution even before the Court below. The bail of revisionist was rejected on the basis of the report submitted by the Probation Officer. The report of the Probation Officer is to the effect that the parents of the juvenile have no proper control over him and this is the reason that he has committed the alleged offence. Except the fact that the revisionist is an accused of the alleged offence, there is nothing on record that he had been involved previously in any other case due to lack of control of his parents. There is nothing in the report of the Probation Officer that his release will bring him into association with any criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Thus, on the basis of the presumption Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court has refused bail on the ground that the release of juvenile on bail will defeat the ends of the justice for which there is no justification and material available on record. The mother of the juvenile was prepared to take him in her care on bail. Thus, the matter was not considered in its true perspective by Board as well as Appellate Court. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is a beneficiary legislature and has been enacted for the benefit of juveniles for their care, protection treatment, development and rehabilitation so that basic human right of children may be protected. In such legislature great attention is required to be given to a juvenile which is in conflict with law. The justice system which is available for adults was not considered suitable for being applied to delinquent juvenile. Thus, the Board as well as die appellate Court committed error in refusing bail to the juvenile on the basis of the reports submitted by the Probation Officer which is unjustified and against the spirit and object of the Act. So the impugned order is liable to be set aside and juvenile is entitled to bail in the circumstances.

The revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow are hereby set aside.

Let revisionist Sanju alias Dheerendra Kumar involved in case crime No. 130 of 2008 under Sections 342, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Itaunja district Lucknow be released on bail on furnishing by his mother Smt. Chandra Kanti w/o Sri Kunj Bihari a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Board, Lucknow.

Revision Allowed.