Vineet Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

This Criminal Revision arises out of the order dated 20th May 2019, as passed by the Court of Presiding Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar, whereby, the bail application (Suit No. 72 of 2019), State v. Vineet Saini, as preferred by the revisionist has been rejected and, consequently on a challenge being given to the said rejection order in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2019, Vineet Saini v. State of Uttarakhand, the Appeal was also dismissed by the order dated 26th June 2019, thereby affirming the rejection order dated 20th May 2019.

There are few peculiar facts, which emerge for consideration before this Court and to be taken heed of while considering the bail application of the revisionist. As per the records, which were placed before the Courts below, as well as before this Court, it is a consistent stand of the revisionist that his marriage with the deceased - Pooja was solemnized on 8th March 2018. Further, the case which was narrated and pressed by the prosecution was that the incident has taken place on 18th October 2018, and the post-mortem on the corpse was conducted on 19th October 2018. But, unfortunately, in the FIR, which was registered as case Crime Number 61 of 2018 for the commission of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, the date of the incident has been shown as to be 8th March 2018, (which, in fact, is the actual date of marriage), and the date of the incident, admittedly, as described in the FIR is that of 18th October 2018, and its post-mortem report is of 19th October 2018.

When the bail application itself was pending consideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, by way of Criminal Case Number 1530 of 2019, State v. Vineet Saini, in order to fortify the fact and to establish as to whether the present revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the incident or not, his school record was summoned by this Court, and the Principal, who has been called upon even today, by this Court, has put in appearance before the Court below also with the attendance Register of the revisionist and she has placed the said attendance register of the revisionist maintained by her School, even before this Court, which was perused by this Court in her presence, which shows that as per the school records, the date of birth of the revisionist is of 26th February 2002, and accordingly on the date of the incident, he was determined to be of 17 years 2 months and 3 days of age.

There is nothing on record to show to the contrary, that the determination of age, as made by the Additional Chief Judicial by his order 6th May 2019, was wrong, or was ever put to challenge by the prosecution before the superior court, questioning the mode of determination of juvenility of the revisionist. After the aforesaid determination, the bail application, as preferred by the revisionist, which was registered as Case Number 72 of 2019, State v. Vineet Saini, came up for consideration before the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar on 20th May 2019, and unfortunately, the Juvenile Justice Board too seems to have acted without application of its mind, because the Juvenile Justice Board has yet again reiterated as if the incident happens to be of 8th March 2018, and the report of the incident was submitted on 18th October 2018. There is no rationality behind the dates referred in the impugned order, and in the FIR, because if the incident happens to be of 8th March 2018, there could not have been a report of 18th October 2018, and that to a post-mortem report of 19th October 2018, because after the commission of an offence, it cannot be presumed reportedly that the body of the deceased-Pooja would have been preserved for such a long time by the accused person prior to registration of the FIR that is shown to be of 18th October 2018.

Thus, it seems that the learned Juvenile Justice Board has not at all applied its mind at all under the given set of circumstances, where the date of birth has already been determined by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 06.05.2019, as referred above, and the Court has very cursorily recorded the findings with regards to the benefit, which is to be extended to the juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 while considering the bail application. The said order of rejection of bail dated 20th May 2019, has been affirmed in the Criminal Appeal Number 114 of 2019, Vineet Saini v. State of Uttarakhand, almost on the same premise and the reasoning, which has been assigned by the Juvenile Justice Board. Even the learned Appellate Court has also not taken care of the impact of a wrongful narration of dates and with regards to the date of commission of an offence, date of registration of the FIR and the date of conduct of post-mortem on the deceased-Pooja and also the age as determined by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 6th May 2019.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the revisionist would be entitled for a bail, subject to the condition that his guardian submitting a bond before the Magistrate concerned along with the two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the revisionist would be enlarged on bail, but there is a slight rider attached to it to the effect that, the revisionist will not leave the District, except with the prior permission of this Court.

Accordingly, the Bail Application (CRMA No. 1888/2019) stands disposed of.