- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The revisionist Gulab Singh is an accused of Case Crime No. 17 of 2006, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 I. P. C. for committing the murder of Sunil son of Babu on 13-1- 2006 at 5 p. m. within the boundary of village Mitali, under Police Station Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat. The F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Vikram Singh, brother of the deceased at Police Station Kotwali Baghpat on 30-1-2006 at 6. 10 p. m. covering a distance of 9km. west. According to the prosecution case Sunil was shot dead in the presence of informant, Ram Chander, Rampal, Sabu and Dhramveer by Gulab Singh, the present revisionist after he was caught hold by Dhanpal and Jagmohan. The post-mortem report dated 14-1- 2006 indicates that the deceased had died because of the gunshot injuries sustained by him.
(2.) THE revisionist claimed that he was a juvenile and therefore, he was referred to Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut vide its order dated 17-8-2006 in Case No. 184 of 2006 relating to the aforesaid crime declared the revisionist to be a juvenile. THE revisionist then moved his bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected by it on 12-9-2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection of his bail prayer the revisionist filed an appeal being Appeal No. 212 of 2003 before the Sessions Judge, Meerut, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 Meerut heard his aforesaid appeal and dismissed it vide its order dated 18-10-2006. Since the revisionist failed to secure release from both the Courts below, therefore, he filed Criminal Revision No. 6220 of 2006 under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice Act in conjunction with 397/401 Cr. P. C. in this Court on 10th November, 2006. His revision was allowed on 14-11-2006 and the matter was remanded back to Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Meerut to decide the appeal of the revisionist afresh after getting his bad antecedents verified. Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Meerut vide his impugned order dated 15-2-2006 again dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and thereby refused to grant him bail in the aforesaid crime No. 17 of 2006, under Sections 302, 307. 504, 506 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat. Since the appeal of the revisionist was again dismissed he had filed the present revision. I have heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned Counsel for the revisionist in support of this revision and learned A. G. A. in opposition. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that bail prayer of the revisionist has been rejected wrongly by both the Courts below since he had got no bad antecedents. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that three cases in which the revisionist is said to be involved are all handy work of the police. He submitted that so far as Crime No. 58 of 2006, under Section 384/506 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat is concerned in the said case the revisionist has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that rest of the two cases Crime No. 94 of 2006, under Section 25 Arms Act and Crime No. 203 of 2006 under Section 2/3 U. P. Gangsters Act both relating to P. S. Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat are the handy work of the police because of the enmity hankered by them from the revisionist. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that there was no material either before the Juvenile Justice Board or before Lower Appellate Court to come to a conclusion that after being released on bail the revisionist is likely to fall in the company of bad person. He further contended that so far as it is mentioned that the brother of the revisionist, namely Satpal is a police constable is concerned that is no ground to refuse bail to the revisionist. He contended that the threats which are being given by Satpal are not relevant at all so far as the bail prayer of the revisionist is concerned. Learned Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that on the earlier occasion the Lower Appellate Court has rejected the bail prayer of the revisionist by mentioning absolutely wrong facts and therefore, just to over come that wrong order he has rejected the bail prayer of the revisionist. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that since the revisionist is juvenile he should be treated sympathetically and his incarceration in remand home will not serve any useful purpose and therefore, he should be released on bail and the present revision should be allowed.
(3.) LEARNED A. G. A. contrarily contended that the revisionist is the main shooter of serious offence under Section 302 I. P. C. in a dare devil manner in the presence of five witnesses and therefore, he should not be released on bail. LEARNED A. G. A. further contended that since the revisionist is involved in the three other offences, therefore, his chances of falling in the company of bad persons is very probable and therefore, the revisionist should not be released on bail. He further contended that other brothers of the revisionist namely Satpal, Jitendra, Karmvir have got a criminal history and are involved in a criminal case vide crime No. 234 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat. Therefore, after being released on bail the revisionist will definitely indulge into more crime and consequently, his bail prayer has been rightly rejected by both the Courts below and this revision being merit less should be dismissed. I have considered the arguments raised by both the sides. It is not disputed that the revisionist is a juvenile. He is said to be involved in an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. However, the fact remains is that the other cases in which the revisionist is said to be involved were initiated by the police as both under Section 25 Arms Act and under 2/3 Gangsters Act informants are police personnels. Since the family members of the revisionist are involved in one case it cannot be said that the revisionist will fall in the company of bad persons. Even if the revisionist is not released on bail he cannot be kept away for meeting with his relatives. In my view, it is not a ground to refuse the bail to the revisionist that the relatives of the revisionist are involved in one case. There was no material before the Lower Courts to come to a conclusion that after being released on bail the revisionist will fall in bad company. The criminal history of the revisionist indicate that all the crime were registered at P. S. Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the revisionist should be given a chance for joining the main stream of the law abiding citizens of the country. Juvenile Justice Act is meant for betterment of juvenile offenders. The main purpose of the Act is to make unscrupulous juvenile accused a law abiding citizen. It is also to be noted that in this case other co-accused persons who have participated in the incident in which the bail of the revisionist has been refused has already been granted bail. It is also perceptible from the pleading made in the affidavit appended alongwith this revision that 2/3 Gangsters Act was implanted on the revisionist when he was already in jail.;