- (1.) CAN the bail be refused to the juvenile on the ground that he has committed heinous offence?" is the main question that falls for consideration in this revision preferred under section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short the Act ).
(2.) BY means of this revision, the accused/ revisionist seeks bail in crime No. 228 of 2006 under section 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'the D. P. Act') of P. S. Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot. By the impugned judgement and order dated 1/10/2007 passed by Shri V. P. Kandpal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2007, bail to the revisionist has been refused, merely on the ground that he has committed heinous crime. Earlier, the bail was refused to the revisionist by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur vide order dated 1/8/2007, which was challenged in the aforesaid appeal.- Both these orders are sought to be quashed in this revision.
(3.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts as emerging from the record, leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that Sri Devi Prasad @ Nathu Ram Ojha had lodged an FIR against the revisionist Prem Chandra @ Monu, his mother Smt. Ramadevi and one Ganga Munim at P. S. Karwi, District Chitrakoot, where a case under section 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act was registered against them. The marriage of the revisionist and Raj Kumari had taken place on 17. 05. 2006. Smt. Raj Kumari died on 05. 07. 2006 in the circumstances other than normal. It was alleged in the FIR that the deceased Raj Kumari was being harassed by the accused persons making demand of Rs. 5000/- and colour T. V. in dowry and when their demand was not fulfilled, they committed her murder. It appears that an application for bail was moved on behalf of revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur. The accused-revisionist was declared juvenile by the Board vide order dated 15/6/2007, but his bail application was rejected vide order dated 1/8/2007 holding that release of accused 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. Against the aforesaid order of Juvenile Justice Board, appeal No. 45 of 2007 under section 52 of the Act was preferred in the court of Sessions Judge Lalitplur, which was decided by Addl. Sessions Judge, Lalitpur vide impugned judgement and order dated 1/10/2007, whereby the appeal has been dismissed. Hence this revision.;