Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2962 (ALL)

Abdul Wahid @ Abdul v. State of U. P.

2015-09-17

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. Heard Mr R. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and also perused the material on record. No one appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite personal service. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 25.3.2015 passed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Addl, Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2015, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) in Case Crime No. 595 of 2004, under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad has been dismissed. 3. As per prosecution version, minor son of the complainant was murdered by the accused revisionist and others. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that co accused Jikariya has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 9.9.2015 passed by this court in Criminal Revision No. 1232 of 2015. 5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that both the courts below have not considered the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The juvenile is in jail since 5.9.2014. 6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. It is further argued that once the person has been declared Juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, and assumption that it will lead to failure of justice in absence of any satisfactory material. 7. It is next argued on behalf of revisionist that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 for rejection of bail application. He further submits that the orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically. He further submits that the orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically. He further submitted that as per report of the District Probation Officer discussed in the impugned order the revisionist has no criminal tendency nor has any criminal history on record and the said fact has not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board. The revisionist is in jail since 5.9.2014. 8. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer. 9. It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that applicant deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof. 10. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed, impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside. 11. Let revisionist Abdul Wahid @ Abdul (minor) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 595 of 2004, under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence, by his legal guardians and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to conditions fixed by the court below.