Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3287 (ALL)

Zaved (Minor) v. State of U. P.

2010-10-22

S.C.AGARWAL

body2010
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 9.11.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut in criminal appeal no.207 of 2009 and order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in case crime no.291 of 2009 under section 376 IPC and section 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, PS Sardhana, District Meerut whereby the application for bail of revisionist Zaved (Minor) was rejected. 2. The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case. He was declared juvenile in conflict with law. The application for bail was rejected by the Board on the ground that his release on bail is likely to expose him to mortal danger. 3. The revisionist filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, which was rejected. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the complainant did not appear on 14.9.2010 when the case was listed peremptorily and was taken in revised. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Board rejected the bail on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There was nothing on record to show that after release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or it would defeat the ends of justice. The revisionist was aged only 10 years at the time of incident and was totally immature. 6. Section 12 (1) of the Act provides as follows: 12. Bail of juvenile. The revisionist was aged only 10 years at the time of incident and was totally immature. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. There was nothing on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act or after release on bail the revisionist may involve again in criminal activities. There was nothing on record to show that after release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. 9.The Board rejected the application for bail on the ground that if the revisionist was released on bail there would be danger to his life. This cannot be a ground to reject the application for bail. Learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for bail not on the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Act, but on the ground of gravity of the offence, as rape was committed with a child of three years by three persons and injuries were serious. This cannot be a ground to reject the application for bail. Learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for bail not on the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Act, but on the ground of gravity of the offence, as rape was committed with a child of three years by three persons and injuries were serious. Learned Special Judge failed to notice that while declaring the revisionist as a juvenile, his date of birth was found to be 20.8.1998. The incident took place on 2.7.2009 and, therefore, at the time of incident, the age of the revisionist was only about 11 years. Age and date of birth of the revisionist has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2. The child of the age of about 11 cannot be said to have acted as a mature person and can very well be considered as immature and incapable of understanding the gravity of his acts. This aspect of the matter was neither considered by the Board nor learned Special Judge. 10. In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the age of the revisionist and the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside. 11. Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the Board and order dated 9.11.2009 passed by Special Judge are set-aside. 12. The revisionist Zaved (Minor) son of Munna, resident of Village Pawali Khas, PS Kanker Khera, District Meerut involved in case crime no.291 of 2009 under section 376 IPC and section 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, PS Sardhana, District Meerut 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 Board concerned. In the title of the revision, the name of the revisionist has been shown as Zavad by mistake, whereas his name in the order passed by the Board as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge is Zaved. Learned counsel for the revisionist is directed to correct the name of the revisionist. Office is also directed to make similar corrections in the record and computer section.