Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3842 (ALL)

SHIV KUMAR @ SADHU v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-12-22

V.K.DIXIT

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Virendra Kumar Dixit, J.—Heard Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Perused the lower Court record and other relevant documents on record. 2. This criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24.7.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 65/09 (Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu v. State of U.P.) whereby the appeal was dismissed, confirming the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad in Case Crime No. 559/2008 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/376, I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar in which the prayer for bail made by the revisionist has been rejected. 3. According to prosecution story, the deceased Sunita was having affair with one Amit Kumar Raidas with whom she fled away. In this regard, a report was lodged in Case Crime No. 870/2008 under Section 363/366, I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. Subsequently, the girl was recovered and given in the custody of her Mausa, (Subhash Chandra). It is alleged that Ram Naval father of Sunita conspired with other co-accused persons for honour killing of her daughter on account of the fact that she was not agreeable to marry according to his wishes. That on 6.10.2008, the revisionist Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu carried co-accused Ran Bahadur alias Rannu Yadav and Pappu Yadav alias Rama Shanker on his motor cycle and went with them on the place of incident where Ram Naval, father of the deceased brought her daughter Sunita on motor cycle from the house of Subhash Chandra (mausa of the deceased) and handed over Sunita to hired criminal/killers. The aforesaid co-accused Ran Bahadur alias Rannu Yadav and Pappu Yadav alias Rama Shanker committed rape on Sunita and thereafter killed her. The F.I.R. was lodged on Case Crime No. 559/2008 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/376 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar. The prayer for bail of juvenile revisionist Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu was rejected by impugned order dated 25.6.2009 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad against which an appeal was preferred. The F.I.R. was lodged on Case Crime No. 559/2008 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/376 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar. The prayer for bail of juvenile revisionist Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu was rejected by impugned order dated 25.6.2009 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad against which an appeal was preferred. By the impugned judgement and order dated 24.7.2009, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad dismissed the appeal confirming the impugned order dated 25.6.2009 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist has no concern with the present case and he has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi. That prima facie no case under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/376, I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/St Act is made out against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 12 of the juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 were ignored by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the learned appellate Court while passing the impugned judgement and orders. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the contentions of the revisionist and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. 6. The provisions for bail of juveniles is provided under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) which is reproduced as under : (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 [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or 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 sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge 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. 7. A bare reading of Section 12 of the Act provides that there are three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. (1) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act. 9. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the nature of offences are grave and if the revisionist Shiv Kumar is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating or terrorizing the witnesses. 10. From perusal of the lower Court record, it transpires that there was nothing to show any material or any substance for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological change or that his release would defeat the ends of justice as provided by Section 12 of the Act. The learned Courts below passed the impugned orders are not in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Act. 11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussions, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad as well as impugned order dated 25.6.2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad are set aside. 12. 11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussions, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad as well as impugned order dated 25.6.2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad are set aside. 12. Let revisionist be released on bail in Case Crime No. 559/2008 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B/376 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar on furnishing personal bond of his natural guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on the following conditions : 1. That the revisionist shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating or terrorizing the witnesses. 2 That he shall not indulge in criminal activities or commission of crime after being released on bail. 3 That he shall cooperate with speedy trial. 13. Office is directed to transmit back the lower Court record to the Court concerned forthwith. ————