- (1.) I have heard Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate, assisted by Sri Sharique Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This revision has been preferred against the order 20 4.2012 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act), in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2012 as also order dated 3.4.2012 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, in Case Crime No.1 of 2012, whereby a prayer for bail under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, has been refused.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile. 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 subsection(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." 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. Apart from it in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld)], 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. Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position and the fact that Puchchi alias Rehan, a co-accused, whose role is alleged to be identical to that of the revisionist, has been enlarged on bail by an order of this Court dated 9.7.2012 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16875 of 2012, I consider that this revision application also deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 20 4.2012 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act) in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2012 as also order dated 3.4.2012 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, in Case Crime No.1 of 2012 are hereby set aside. In these circumstances, revisionist is entitled for bail.
(3.) LET revisionist- Bhure alias Monish be enlarged on bail, in Case Crime No.1 of 2012, under Section 302/34 I.P.C, Police Station Bekanganj, District Kanpur Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond by the natural guardian of Bhure alias Monish 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.;