Mohd. Feroj vs State of U.P. and Others

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

The revisionist is admittedly a juvenile. His bail prayer by the Juvenile Board has been rejected on 19.4.2006 with the observation that if the revisionist will be released his physical, mental and psychological condition is such that he is likely to fall in bad company. The appeal preferred by the revisionist being Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2006 was also dismissed by Additional District and Sessions Judge court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar vide his order dated 13.6.2006. The aforesaid two orders are under challenge in the instant revision. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is a juvenile and that he is an accused of selling a narcotic drug. No doubt the offence is a serious one but the Juvenile Board and the lower appellate court did not address itself to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Keeping juveniles in custody is not the law as the Juvenile Justice Act has been enacted for an over all development of the delinquent juveniles. Jail is not such a place where a juvenile can be reared up in an healthy atmosphere. Section 12, therefore, mandates that before rejecting the bail prayer of a juvenile some tangible cogent material unerringly pointing out that juvenile is likely to fall in a bad company must be recommended. The bail to a delinquent cannot be denied by making casual observations as has been done while rejecting the bail of the present revisionist. The Juvenile Justice Board has made a cursory objection that the revisionist is likely to fall in a bad company. The said observation was not based on any tangible material at all. Cursory observation without any material before it is not expected from Juvenile Board who should be sensitive to juveniles as the mind of delinquent juveniles is psychologically very unmatured and they are prone to hazards of the punishment which can have an adverse effect on them.

The lower appellate court also in an unmindful manner has rejected the bail prayer of the revisionist. I have considered the merits of the matter. In my view, the revisionist deserves to be released on bail.

The revisionist Mohd. Feroj is directed to be released on bail on his father Mohd. Hanif furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar. Father of the revisionist Mohd. Hanif is directed to keep his son Mohd. Feroj under his guardianship. He is further directed to produce Mohd. Feroj before Juvenile Justice Board once in a month. He is further directed to keep watch over his son Mohd. Feroj so that he may not indulge in criminal activity in future.

With the aforesaid direction, this revision is finally allowed at the admission stage itself.