Ankit vs State of Uttarakhand

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard. This revision is directed against order dated 19.01.2012, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2012, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, rejecting the application of the present revisionist, for bail.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Crime No. 210 of 2011 was registered at Kotwali Manglore, relating to offences punishable u/s 302/34, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 504 of I.P.C., in which it was alleged that the revisionist Ankit alongwith his two associates, with common intention committed murder of one Nitin. Role of firing shot has been assigned to the present revisionist.

It appears that an application was moved before Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar, for getting declared accused Ankit (present revisionist), as Juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar, vide its order dated 16.11.2011, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 90 of 2011, declared the accused Ankit (present revisionist), as Juvenile. However, the bail application of the accused Ankit was rejected by the Board on 21.12.2011. Aggrieved by said order appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide impugned order 19.01.2012.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that co-accused Vivek and Madhur, who are major, have already been directed to be released on bail, but the revisionist, who was minor on the day of incident, has been denied the bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that though the revisionist has pleaded that his date of birth of 22.06.1993, but the documents relied by him before the Juvenile Justice Board were not genuine. It is also contended that even the mark sheet of the board of High School and Intermediate examination of Uttar Pradesh, in the year 2010, showing date of birth of the revisionist as 22.06.1993, is doubtful.

However, so long as the order of Juvenile Justice Board, declaring the revisionist still stands in operation, as such in the opinion of this Court, the bail of the revisionist could have been refused only in exceptional case as provided in section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that revisionist deserves bail. Therefore, the revision is allowed. Let the appellant Ankit be released on bail on undertaking given by natural guardian and furnishing two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Hardwar.