Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : "Bail To The Juvenile Cannot Be Refused On The Ground Of Gravity Of The Offence"
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Prem Chandra @ Monu Vs. State Of U.P. & Another On 04/07/2008 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 3968 OF 2007
CORAM : Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR
Reserved


Criminal Revision No. 3968 Of 2007

Prem Chand @ Monu...................Applicants

Vs.

1.State Of U.P.
2.Devi Prasad @ Nathu Ram Ojha......Opposite Parties


********************

Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

"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 01.10.2007 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 01.08.2007, 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 15.06.2007, But His Bail Application Was Rejected Vide Order Dated 01.08.2007 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 01.10.2007, Whereby The Appeal Has Been Dismissed. Hence This Revision.
4. I Have Heard Arguments Of Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra Learned Counsel For The Revisionist And Learned AGA For The State And Also Perused The Record. Opposite Party No. 2 Has Put In Appearance Through His Counsel Sri S.K. Kushwaha, But None Appeared For Him On The Date Of Hearing Of The Revision.
5. The Main Contention Raised By The Learned Counsel For The Revisionist Is That The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Lower Appellate Court Is Wholly Illegal, As Bail To The Juvenile Cannot Be Refused On The Ground That He Has Committed Heinous Offence. The Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The Revisionist Is That Bail Application Of The Juvenile Is To Be Considered In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 12 Of The Act And Bail Can Be Refused Only If The Release Of Juvenile 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 And Since The Bail To The Revisionist In Instant Case Has Been Refused On The Ground That He Has Committed Heinous Crime, Hence The Impugned Order Being Wholly Illegal Should Be Set Aside And Revisionist Should Be Admitted To Bail, As No Material Has Been Brought On Record To Show That The Release Of The Accused-revisionist 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.
6.The Learned AGA On The Other Hand Submitted That The Accused-revisionist Has Committed Murder Of His Wife Just After 50 Days Of Marriage And Hence He Does Not Deserve Bail And Interference By This Court In The Impugned Order Is Not Warranted.
7. Having Given My Thoughtful Consideration To The Rival Submissions Made By The Learned Counsel For The Parties, I Am Of The Considered Opinion That Bail To A Juvenile Cannot Be Refused On The Ground That He Has Committed Heinous Offence. The Bail Application Of A Juvenile, Has To Be Decided In Accordance With Provisions Of Section 12 Of The Act, Which Reads Thus:-
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 Appear 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)......................................
(3)......................................

8. According To Sub-section (1) Of Section 12 Of The Act, A Juvenile Shall Be Released On Bail With Or Without Surety Notwithstanding Anything Contained In The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Or In Any Other Law For The Time Being In Force. The First Part Of The Provision Appears To Be Mandatory In Nature For Releasing A Juvenile On Bail, But The Second Part Also Equally Appears To Be Mandatory For Refusing The Bail, As A Juvenile Shall Not Be So Released If There Appears Reasonable Grounds For Believing That;
1.the Release Is Likely To Bring Him Into Association With Any Known Criminal; Or
2.expose Him To Moral, Physical Or Psychological Danger; Or
3.that His Release Would Defeat The Ends Of Justice.

9. In Instant Case, The Accused/revisionist Was Declared Juvenile By The Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur Vide Order Dated 15.06.2007. Hence It Was Obligatory For The Board To Decide The Bail Application Of The Revisionist In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 12 (1) Of The Act. Certified Copy Of The Order Dated 01.08.2007 Passed By Juvenile Justice Board Lalitpur On The Bail Application Of The Revisionist Has Been Filed In This Revision, Which Is Paper No. 12. The Board Has Rejected The Bail Application Of The Revisionist After Translating Aforesaid Three Conditions Of Section 12 (1) Of The Act In Hindi And No Reason Has Been Assigned By The Board As To How The Release Of The Revisionist Would Defeat The Ends Of Justice. The Order Passed By The Board Is As Under:-
lqukA Vipkjh IzsepUnz Miuke Eksuw Eq0 V0 La0 221 Lu~ 06 /kkjk 498,] 304ch Hkk0 N0 La0 3@4 Ngst Izfr0 Vf/k0 Fkkuk DohZ Ftyk Fp=dwV Ds Rgr LEizzsss"k.k X`g Essa Fu:) GSA Vipkjh Dks Fnukad 15-06-2007 Dks Fd'kksj ?kksf"kr Fd;k Tk Pqdk GSA VfHk;kstu Izi=ksa Dks Voyksdu Fd;k X;kA Vipkjh Ds Kkr Vijkf/k;ksa Dh Laxr Esa Tkus Dh LEHkkouk Izrhr Gksrh GS] Ftlls Mlds USfrd O EuksoSKkfud [krjs Dh LaHkkouk GS RFkk U;k; Dk Mn~ns'; Hkh FoQy Gks Ldrk GSA Ekeys Ds LEiw.kZ RF;ksa ,oa IfjfLFkfr;ksa Dks Nz"Vxr J[krs Gq, Tekur Dk DksbZ ;qfDr;qDr ,oa U;k;ksfpr Vk/kkj Ugha Ik;k Tkrk GSA Rn~uqlkj Tekur Vkosnu I= FujLr Fd;k Tkrk GSA

10. The Board Has Not Discussed The Material On The Basis Of Which, The Aforesaid Findings Have Been Recorded To Come To The Conclusion That The Release Of The Revisionist 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. If There Was Some Material Before The Board To Show That The Release The Revisionist 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, Then That Material Ought To Have Been Discussed In The Order, But The Board Has Not Disclosed Any Reason As To How The Release Of The Revisionist Would Defeat The Ends Of Justice. Mere Mentioning Of The Aforesaid Conditions Of Section 12 (1) Of The Act In The Order Is Not Sufficient To Refuse Bail To A Juvenile. The Board Or The Appellate Court Is Required To Give Reasons To Show That The Release Of The Juvenile 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. As Mentioned Herein-above, The Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur Has Not Given Any Reason In Support Of Its Order Dated 01.08.2007 Whereby The Bail Application Of The Revisionist Was Rejected. As Such The Order Dated 01.08.2007 Passed By The Board Was Wholly Illegal, Which Could Not Be Sustained. Certified Copy Of The Impugned Order Dated 01.10.2007 Passed By The Lower Appellate Court Is Paper No. 6. The Lower Appellate Court Also Has Not Assigned Any Reason For Declining Bail To The Revisionist And Order Dated 01.08.2007 Passed By The Board Has Been Confirmed By The Learned Lower Appellate Court Saying That No Legal Irregularity Or Material Error Appears In The Impugned Order To Make Any Interference. Although There Is Mention Of The Report Of The District Probation Officer In The Impugned Order Of The Lower Appellate Court, But The Impugned Order Does Not Disclose As To What Report Has Been Submitted By The District Probation Officer And What Is The Basis Of That Report. The Lower Appellate Court Has Refused Bail To The Revisionist Holding That The Offence Is Heinous And Prima Facie It Is A Case Of Dowry Death. In My Opinion, Bail To The Revisionist Could Not Be Refused Merely On The Ground That It Is A Case Of Dowry Death And The Offence Is Heinous. The Lower Appellate Court Also Was Under Obligation To Consider The Provisions Of Section 12 (1) Of The Act, While Deciding The Appeal Against The Order Of Board. Section 12(1) Of The Act Itself Lays Down That Bail To The Juvenile Has To Be Granted Notwithstanding Anything Contained In The Code Of Criminal Procedure Or In Any Other Law For The Time Being In Force. It Means That Gravity Of The Offence Is Not Relevant Factor In The Case Of The Bail Of The Juvenile And If Any Of The Three Conditions Mentioned In Second Part Of Section 12(1) Of The Act Does Not Exist, Then The Juvenile Has To Be Released On Bail, Even If He Has Committed Heinous Crime. Unfortunately In Instant Case, The Lower Appellate Court Has Also Not Given Any Reason To Show That The Release Of The Revisionist 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. Therefore, In My Opinion, Both The Impugned Orders Are Not In Accordance With Law.
11. The Revisionist Has Been Declared Juvenile By The Board And That Matter Has Attained Finality. Unless There Was Sufficient Material To Establish That The Release Of The Revisionist 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, His Bail Could Not Be Refused, But Unfortunately The Juvenile Justice Board As Well As The Learned Lower Appellate Court Did Not Consider The Bail Application Of The Revisionist In Proper Prospective And Bail Has Been Declined To Him Without Any Sufficient Reason. There Is Nothing On Record To Show That The Revisionist Has Any Criminal Antecedents. No Material Has Been Produced By Opposite Parties To Establish That The Revisionist Had Committed Murder Of His Wife. According To The Learned Counsel For The Revisionist, The Deceased Had Committed Suicide, Because She Was A Young Woman Aged About 20 Years And The Revisionist Being Child Below 16 Years At The Time Of Marriage Was Not Able To Perform His Matrimonial Obligations And For This Reason She Did Not Want To Live With The Revisionist, Whereas Her Parents Were Compelling Her To Live In Her Sasural. There Is No Material To Establish That After Release, The Revisionist Would Join The Company Of The Criminals, Or There Would Be Any Danger To His Life. Thereafter, Having Regard To All The Facts And Circumstances, The Revisionist Deserves Bail In This Case.
12. Consequently, The Revision Is Allowed. Both The Impugned Orders Are Hereby Set Aside.
Let The Revisionist Prem Chandra @ Monu Involved In Case Crime No. 228 Of 2006 Under Sections 498A, 304B IPC And Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot Be Released On Bail On Furnishing His Guardian's Personal Bond And Two Sureties Each In The Like Amount To The Satisfaction Of The Juvenile Justice Board Concerned.

Go to Navigation