SANJAY @ SANJU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant revision, juvenile Sanjay @ Sanju has challenged the judgement and order dated 17th November, 2014 passed by Sri Ali Zameen, Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2014 (Sanjay @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the present controversy arose out of the proceedings of Case Crime No.368 of 2013 under section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Bindaki, District Fatehpur, when the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur had rejected the request for bail made on behalf of the revisionist on the ground that social investigation report submitted by the probation officer revealed that the juvenile had love affair with Vandana, daughter of the deceased, which was opposed by the deceased for which she was murdered by the revisionist. According to the probation officer, considering the educational background, motive of the crime, the juvenile did not appear to be entitled to be released on bail because he was not amenable to the parental control. There were reasons to believe that, in case, he was enlarged on bail, he might be exposed to be moral, physical and psychological danger. In case, he was released on bail, development of his personality would be adversely affected.

(3.) THIS order was challenged in the aforementioned appeal. After detailed discussion, the learned Sessions Judge came to the opinion that juvenile used to misbehave with the daughter of the deceased, when she objected, the juvenile murdered her. The learned Sessions Judge also noticed this fact that alleged act of the juvenile had negative impact on the society. Thereafter, he referred two judgments of this Court wherein it was observed that while exercising jurisdiction under section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, not only the welfare of the juvenile is to be seen but conduct of the juvenile in commission of the crime should be seen whether the juvenile suffers from depravity against which the society has a right to be protected. Feeling aggrieved, the validity of the impugned judgement and order has been challenged before this Court on the ground that report of the probation officer regarding conduct and behaviour of the revisionist in college and neighbourhood has been completely ignored. The juvenile has been detained for more than one an a half years in observation home. At the time of the alleged incident, he was aged about 17 years, five months, 15 days. He is a student. His confinement in observation home will ruin his life. The impugned order is against the provisions and spirit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. In support of the ground raised hereinabove, the learned counsel for the revisionist has taken me through the impugned judgement and order passed by the Sessions Judge. According to him social investigation report cannot be used against the revisionist from which juvenile is entitled for release. It is only for the State to prove that the case of the juvenile squarely falls within the prohibited limit prescribed by section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist has referred the following cases: -