Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 432 (ALL)

Arvind Kumar Misra @ Buddhu v. State of U. P.

2012-02-16

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2012
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.;- Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. 2. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 29.01.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli in criminal appeal no. 2/2011(Arvind Kumar versus State of U.P.) and order dated 14.01.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in case crime no. 1675/2010 under Section 376 I.P.C., Police station Sareni, district Raebareli. 3. Admittedly revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile. 4. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused. 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 appears 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 inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 5. In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 6. Apart from it in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 6. Apart from it in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (71) ACC ,209 Allahabad and Naurang ( minor) Vs. State of U.P.reported in 2010 (71) ACC 255 Allahabad this court has expressed the similar view and has granted bail to the juvenile offender in heinous offence. Seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile. 7. Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position and the fact that in this case no such conditions exists, on the basis of which the bail application of a juvenile can be dismissed, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. the order dated 29.01.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli in criminal appeal no. 2/2011(Arvind Kumar versus State of U.P.) and order dated 14.01.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli are here by set aside. 8. In these circumstances, revisionist is entitled for bail. 9. Let revisionist-Arvind Kumar @ Buddhu be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.1675 of 2010, under Sections 376 IPC, Police Station-Sareni, district Raebareli on furnishing a personal bond by the mother of Arvind Kumar @ Buddhu and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board to the effect that he will not come into contact with other offenders.