Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2404 (ALL)

Dharmbir v. State of U. P. and Another

2010-08-09

S.C.AGARWAL

body2010
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal, J. - This revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in criminal juvenile appeal no.23 of 2010 and order dated 16.2.2010 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in case crime no.1881 of 2009 under section 376 IPC, PS Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur whereby the application for bail of revisionist Dharmbir was rejected. The revisionist Dharmbir is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case. He was declared juvenile in conflict with law. The application for bail was rejected by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur on the ground that his release on bail 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. The revisionist filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, which was rejected. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur rejected the bail on the basis of police report whereas, the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. The police report mentioned that after release on bail, the revisionist would again involve himself in criminal activities and would threaten the witnesses. On what basis this police report was given, has not been mentioned in the order dated 16.2.2010. The District Probation Officer recommended the release of revisionist on bail. Section 12 (1) of the Act provides as follows: 12. Bail of juvenile. ? On what basis this police report was given, has not been mentioned in the order dated 16.2.2010. The District Probation Officer recommended the release of revisionist on bail. Section 12 (1) of the Act provides as follows: 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 [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. The aforesaid provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are 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. No such report was filed by the Probation Officer or the police so as to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act. The police report was that after release on bail the revisionist may involve again in criminal activities and may threaten the witnesses. The basis of such apprehension was not mentioned. It was not the report of the police that the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological dangers. There is also nothing on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The Probation Officer also recommended his release on bail. In these circumstances, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside. Revision is allowed. In these circumstances, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside. Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.2.2010 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur and order dated 25.2.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur are set-aside. The revisionist Dharmbir son of Rampreet, resident of Village ? Bhaisla, PS Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur involved in case crime no.1881 of 2009 under section 376 IPC, PS Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian - father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate concerned.